Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:04 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:21 pm
Perhaps. But it's really no "definition" at all, then. What it's "defining" is mere self-satisfaction, not at all anything recognizable as "morality."

I think you'll find that although many people may have a weak idea, or no credible idea, of what "morality" is, they still look to it to do some of the same functions they have always expected of a real "morality." They'll still expect it to provide order and direction to their conceptions of social justice, for example; they'll still complain that "injustices" like theft, violence or slander are "wrong" in an essentially objective sense, they'll still need to order their relationships with people and things by some principle, they'll still struggle with guilt and conscience when they do what they sense is "the wrong thing," they'll still hope that following some conception they have of good behaviour confirms them to be "good people," and they'll still object when things are "unfair" even if there was never any promise of "fairness" in their own essential worldview in the first place. All of that is moralizing, and in quite an objective mode, as well.

People are often illogical. But that's the value of logic: that it disciplines these rogue and inconsistent prejudices by requiring them to be made sensible. So using logic, we can see that their premises about the world do not fit with the value-judgments they routinely make; and we can quite straightforwardly grasp that they are not understanding themselves clearly, and are operating by instinct, habit, fear or tradition rather than by clear understanding of what they are doing.

That's pretty routine. But so is the fact that people want and need morality, even if in their personal theorizing, they mistakenly suppose it's all only subjective anyway. You'll note here, on this thread, that many people who profess to be Atheists or skeptics of some kind when it comes to questions about God, still rather irrationally want not to let morality cease to be a thing. They've undercut the moral authority of their own worldview, but they still yearn to be able to tell us that their "morality" is real and certain. It's like they want to talk like a subjectivist, when morality pinches them, particularly, but have all the benefits and cachet of moral objectivism anyway. They're wanting to have their cake, and eat it too.

That's people.

Very well, IC, I can see you are determined to have it all your own way, no matter what. I really don't think you are going to win anyone over with that dogmatic attitude, though.

One can be dogmatically wrong. Or one can be dogmatically right, of course. But I'm not actually being "dogmatic" at all:

I'm just pointing out what's pretty obviously true about what morality is.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 8:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:04 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:59 pm

Very well, IC, I can see you are determined to have it all your own way, no matter what. I really don't think you are going to win anyone over with that dogmatic attitude, though.

One can be dogmatically wrong. Or one can be dogmatically right, of course. But I'm not actually being "dogmatic" at all:

No, you are simply saying you are right, end of story, case closed.

I'm just pointing out what's pretty obviously true about what morality is.

But isn't something supposed to be apparent to more than just one person before it qualifies as being obvious?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:06 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 8:39 pm
But isn't something supposed to be apparent to more than just one person before it qualifies as being obvious?

It's supposed to be apparent to logic. But not all people choose to be logical, so not all people find the obvious obvious.

IC WROTE:

And at the end of our own lives, or when tragedy strikes us -- as eventually it inevitably does -- we find even our own spoiled, distracted thoughts turning to the question of what to do when our self-sufficiency runs out. And at the end, we're all driven to prayer.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 10:51 pm It has suddenly occurred to me that "true" and "false" are themselves value judgments.

On a strictly materialist/ontological world-view all there is is Truth. In such a world-view what could "falsehood" possibly be?

All there is is the totality of facts.

We think different thoughts.
We say different words.
We have different ideas and understandings about the world.
We act differently.

There can be no talk of "true" and "false"; "better" or "worse".

True is materially equivalent to False so there's no logic.

True ⇔ False
1 ⇔ 0

Subjective morality: The truth-value of (True ⇔ False) is subjective.
Objective Morality The truth-value of (True ⇔ False) is False.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:16 pm I'm glad I didn't post that.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:16 pm I'm glad I didn't post that.

Hey, liar. How's your evening?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:35 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Sep 18, 2023 11:16 pm I'm glad I didn't post that.

Hey, liar. How's your evening?

How do you know I have an evening?

Skepdick wrote:On a strictly materialist/ontological world-view all there is is Truth. In such a world-view what could "falsehood" possibly be?

All there is is the totality of facts.

There can be no talk of "true" and "false"; "better" or "worse".

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:15 am

Skepdick wrote:On a strictly materialist/ontological world-view all there is is Truth. In such a world-view what could "falsehood" possibly be?

What you're saying is an example of falsehood -- a false belief held by Skepdick.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:15 am

All there is is the totality of facts.

Falsehood is a fact too. It's another word for "false belief". False beliefs exist all over the place.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:15 am Morality is exactly like that. It's not about personal likes and dislikes.

Skepdick wrote:Says you. But all you are really demonstrating is further rejection of logic.

I say X is true. You say not(X) is true.

We are in conflict. True not(True)

Where's falsehood?

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:28 am Logic dictates that one of you holds a false belief.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 12:28 am A falsehood is a false belief, so if someone holds a false belief, a falsehood exists.

Q.E.D.

Skepdick wrote:You are pre-supposing a belief in logic and subjucation to non-contradiction.