Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:27 pm
Then you should probably abandon using the word. It lacks content, for you.

You said it doesn't mean "Gary doesn't like": but then you revert to,


Then you're not really saying anything at all. You're saying, "What Gary doesn't like is what Gary doesn't like."


Certainly. But I'm a moral objectivist, so there's nothing inconsistent in me saying so.

OK. If you want to believe that I can't know what is immoral and what isn't, then so be it. I feel like I do.

I know. I can see you do.

However, what we do in philosophy is more than have feelings. We try to figure out whether or not those feelings are appropriate, and what good reasons we might have for feeling as we do.

However, on the bright side, at least we both agree that cannibalism is immoral. Can we call it a "win" then? We both seem to be onboard in taking that stand against cannibalism.

It's not good enough, Gary. Because somebody is going to ask us why we think what we think...not merely about cannibalism, perhaps, but about murder, abuse, slavery, theft, sloth, character assassination, perjury and so forth. And when they do, we have to have something much better to tell them than, "Well, Gary and I feel this way..."

If that's all we've got, we can expect to lose our case, right away.

Then it sounds like we are at the mercy of whoever would put us on trial for thinking that cannibalism is immoral. What else can I say? ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:53 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:30 pm

OK. If you want to believe that I can't know what is immoral and what isn't, then so be it. I feel like I do.

I know. I can see you do.

However, what we do in philosophy is more than have feelings. We try to figure out whether or not those feelings are appropriate, and what good reasons we might have for feeling as we do.

However, on the bright side, at least we both agree that cannibalism is immoral. Can we call it a "win" then? We both seem to be onboard in taking that stand against cannibalism.

It's not good enough, Gary. Because somebody is going to ask us why we think what we think...not merely about cannibalism, perhaps, but about murder, abuse, slavery, theft, sloth, character assassination, perjury and so forth. And when they do, we have to have something much better to tell them than, "Well, Gary and I feel this way..."

If that's all we've got, we can expect to lose our case, right away.

Then it sounds like we are at the mercy of whoever would put us on trial for thinking that cannibalism is immoral. What else can I say? ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

And those who believe we should kill people, and those who enslave, and those who rape, steal, slander, abuse, and perform every other kind of injustice, and helpless to convince those whom such nefarious persons might seek to sway to their actions. We can't even convince ourselves we know what we're talking about.

Yep, we're in deep trouble, then.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:53 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:49 pm
I know. I can see you do.

However, what we do in philosophy is more than have feelings. We try to figure out whether or not those feelings are appropriate, and what good reasons we might have for feeling as we do.

It's not good enough, Gary. Because somebody is going to ask us why we think what we think...not merely about cannibalism, perhaps, but about murder, abuse, slavery, theft, sloth, character assassination, perjury and so forth. And when they do, we have to have something much better to tell them than, "Well, Gary and I feel this way..."

If that's all we've got, we can expect to lose our case, right away.

Then it sounds like we are at the mercy of whoever would put us on trial for thinking that cannibalism is immoral. What else can I say? ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

And those who believe we should kill people, and those who enslave, and those who rape, steal, slander, abuse, and perform every other kind of injustice, and helpless to convince those whom such nefarious persons might seek to sway to their actions. We can't even convince ourselves we know what we're talking about.

Yep, we're in deep trouble, then.

I know what I'm talking about, I'm talking about cannibalism being immoral. I'm convinced of that. Are you not? If you are, then it sounds like we're both convinced. Does it not?

Do you not know "what [you] are talking about" when you say cannibalism is immoral? As I said, if someone wants to put us on trial for NOT being willing to engage in cannibalism (or any other horrible action a human can perform), then what else can we do other than hope there is a God and that the clouds will open up angels will descend and we will be saved or something. Absent that, then I'm not sure what our alternative would be.

"Peter Kropotkin:
I suspect that part of the problem in this entire
''cannibalism is immoral" lies in the word.. Immoral..
what exactly does this word mean? Immoral to.. whom?
why is it ... immoral? what makes this action ... immoral?
the rub here is not in cannibalism, but in the word.. immoral...


IC: Is Socialism "moral"?

K: well that depends on how we define socialism... and what the word,
''moral'' means...and one of the major functions of any discipline, is
the act of comparing and contrasting.... if we were to compare the two
systems, Socialism and I would suppose capitalism, then we can
see how Socialism is more "moral" than capitalism... but once
again, it depends on how we define moral, socialism and capitalism...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:04 pm "Peter Kropotkin:
I suspect that part of the problem in this entire
''cannibalism is immoral" lies in the word.. Immoral..
what exactly does this word mean? Immoral to.. whom?
why is it ... immoral? what makes this action ... immoral?
the rub here is not in cannibalism, but in the word.. immoral...


IC: Is Socialism "moral"?

K: well that depends on how we define socialism... and what the word,
''moral'' means...and one of the major functions of any discipline, is
the act of comparing and contrasting.... if we were to compare the two
systems, Socialism and I would suppose capitalism, then we can
see how Socialism is more "moral" than capitalism... but once
again, it depends on how we define moral, socialism and capitalism...

Kropotkin

Well until others find out what moral "means" I'll go off my instincts. Good luck to the rest who are seeking an absolute definition. Just don't define MORAL as killing Gary. That's about all I can ask at this point from others I suppose.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:53 pm

Then it sounds like we are at the mercy of whoever would put us on trial for thinking that cannibalism is immoral. What else can I say? ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

And those who believe we should kill people, and those who enslave, and those who rape, steal, slander, abuse, and perform every other kind of injustice, and helpless to convince those whom such nefarious persons might seek to sway to their actions. We can't even convince ourselves we know what we're talking about.

Yep, we're in deep trouble, then.

I know what I'm talking about, I'm talking about cannibalism being immoral.

Actually, it seems you don't. You have said that "immoral" doesn't mean "Gary doesn't like..." But you've found it impossible to say what it DOES mean.

So "Cannibalism is immoral," for you, translates to, "Cannibalism is xblgdy."

Do you not know "what [you] are talking about" when you say cannibalism is immoral?

I answered that: did you miss it?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:04 pm "Peter Kropotkin:
Socialism is more "moral" than capitalism...
Kropotkin

Well, if you leave your terms undefined, you'll never say anything. But let's assume we both know what "Socialism" means, because you clearly think you do, and I'm content with the standard defintion, for the moment.

Now, do you think Socialism is "moral"? If it is, what do you mean by "moral"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:29 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 5:57 pm
And those who believe we should kill people, and those who enslave, and those who rape, steal, slander, abuse, and perform every other kind of injustice, and helpless to convince those whom such nefarious persons might seek to sway to their actions. We can't even convince ourselves we know what we're talking about.

Yep, we're in deep trouble, then.

I know what I'm talking about, I'm talking about cannibalism being immoral.

Actually, it seems you don't. You have said that "immoral" doesn't mean "Gary doesn't like..." But you've found it impossible to say what it DOES mean.

So "Cannibalism is immoral," for you, translates to, "Cannibalism is xblgdy."

Do you not know "what [you] are talking about" when you say cannibalism is immoral?

I answered that: did you miss it?

you've found it impossible to say what it DOES mean

OK, so maybe you can "define" immoral"? What do you define "immoral" as? You say I can't do it. Can you do what I can't? Or are you in the same boat as me?

Socialism: a political and economic theory of
social organization which advocates that the means of
production, distribution, and exchange should be owned by
or REGULATED BY THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE...

And in a very real way, given this definition, we already have
a "socialistic" system...if we regulate the production of,
the distribution of, and the exchange of products and goods,
then we already have a socialistic system... but my problem is
this.... the way those products, goods, are distributed and
worked out, favors those who makes the rules... the system
itself isn't honest or just...and what does the word justice mean?
Justice and equality have the same meaning... to be just is to be equal....

and clearly the system we have, of capitalism, that is "regulated"
by those in charge, has major problems because the system is
unjust/unequal..... want proof? look at how a small group of
people, 500, own as much wealth as half the worlds' population...
that is clearly unjust/unequal....

now if we revamped the system to actually be just, which is what
socialism is supposed to be, then yes, as long as it treats its
members justly, equally, then socialism is more ''moral"
than say, capitalism... for to be ''moral'' requires justice,
equality...for a system that favors the few over the many,
as our current system does, is clearly not just and clearly not
equal and thus, is also clearly not ''moral''

Kropotkin

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:36 pm OK, so maybe you can "define" immoral"? What do you define "immoral" as? You say I can't do it. Can you do what I can't? Or are you in the same boat as me?

I've done it several times here. But I'm fine doing it again.

"Immoral" means "incompatible with the character and purposes of God."

But it's not a definition that a non-Theist is going to believe.

It will still be right, though.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:36 pm OK, so maybe you can "define" immoral"? What do you define "immoral" as? You say I can't do it. Can you do what I can't? Or are you in the same boat as me?

I've done it several times here. But I'm fine doing it again.

"Immoral" means "incompatible with the character and purposes of God."

But it's not a definition that a non-Theist is going to believe.

It will still be right, though.

Is it immoral only because it's incompatible with God's purposes or is it incompatible with God's purposes only because it is immoral?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:46 pm ...socialism is more ''moral"
than say, capitalism...
Kropotkin

You still haven't said what you mean by "moral."

You seem to think it has something to do with a conception of fairness, justice or equality that you personally hold. But Socialism, being dialectical materialism, cannot explain why anybody's owed any of these things. It doesn't even try to, actually; it argues that conflictuality is the inevitable state of things (the "dialectical" part), and that everything is made up of nothing but "materials" (the "materialism" part). So there are no such things as anybody's conception of "justice" or "equality" to be expected by anybody, ever.

So in what sense is Socialism "moral" then? "Moral" doesn't even exist, for Socialism.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:36 pm OK, so maybe you can "define" immoral"? What do you define "immoral" as? You say I can't do it. Can you do what I can't? Or are you in the same boat as me?

I've done it several times here. But I'm fine doing it again.

"Immoral" means "incompatible with the character and purposes of God."

But it's not a definition that a non-Theist is going to believe.

It will still be right, though.

Is it immoral only because it's incompatible with God's purposes or is it incompatible with God's purposes only because it is immoral?

You got my definition wrong. I included God's "nature and purposes." Since "immoral" and "contrary to the nature and purposes of God" are exactly the same thing, you're not asking an intelligible question. You're presupposing they're two different things; but Theists believe they are not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:49 pm
I've done it several times here. But I'm fine doing it again.

"Immoral" means "incompatible with the character and purposes of God."

But it's not a definition that a non-Theist is going to believe.

It will still be right, though.

Is it immoral only because it's incompatible with God's purposes or is it incompatible with God's purposes only because it is immoral?

You got my definition wrong. I included God's "nature and purposes." Since "immoral" and "contrary to the nature and purposes of God" are exactly the same thing, you're not asking an intelligible question. You're presupposing they're two different things; but Theists believe they are not.

OK. Would you say God is a good God?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:52 pm

Is it immoral only because it's incompatible with God's purposes or is it incompatible with God's purposes only because it is immoral?

You got my definition wrong. I included God's "nature and purposes." Since "immoral" and "contrary to the nature and purposes of God" are exactly the same thing, you're not asking an intelligible question. You're presupposing they're two different things; but Theists believe they are not.

OK. Would you say God is a good God?

"Good" is just another word for "moral," which is a synonym for "consonant with the character and purposes of God." So you're going to have the same problem: you're presupposing a dichotomy where none exists.

But the problem is different for Atheists and agnostics. If they assume "good" and "God's nature and purposes" are distinct, then they're going to think they can ask the question coherently, even though they can't really do that. So they're going to think the question is reasonable, when it's not. You can't ask a Theist to stop believing as a Theist and still to give you a Theistic answer. That's not sensible...

Moreover, they're in no position to ask about a predication of something they don't even think exists...two things, really, that don't rationalize with their own a priori suppositions. For in their world, there is neither a "God" nor an objective "good."