Page 54 of 715
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:08 am
by TimeSeeker
Sounds like God’s word was lost in interpretation, hey Mr Can’t understand the objective meaning of right and wrong?
Failing to grasp that insofar as our monkey brains can conceptualise ‘infinity’ - words are indeed ‘infinitely’ flexible.
That is why we can have the word ‘universe’ right next to the word ‘quark’. Thus reducing the extremes of scale, complexity and proportion to two words.
Words that my non-English speaking grandmother can’t even understand.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 am
by Peter Holmes
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:51 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:43 pm
It is not vague! It means PRECISELY what harm means. Objectively and all.
Is cutting someone "harm"? Is it harm when they cut themselves for fun? Is it harm when a surgeon cuts them?
Is it harm when you let someone make a mistake and get hurt? Is it always even wrong when you let people get hurt on purpose? Learning requires "harm," in many cases, like learning to ride a bike: is that okay? Is it okay that we "harm" children by making them go to school, when they'd rather play video games; or is it harm to let them play video games, instead of sending them to school?
Is sticking a probe into a baby's spine and sucking his brain into a sink "harm," or is it "harm" to deny his mother the right to do it? Is it harm to allow the Luftwaffe to bomb London, or is it worse harm to let the Nazis know you've cracked their codes? Is it worse harm to drop the A-Bomb, or is it worse harm to let the war in the Pacific drag on?
You see the problem. There's no stable definition of what constitutes "harm." And something that could potentially be "harm" often comes packaged with certain human goods. So the key value, "harm" is vacuous. It tells us nothing about morality at all.
Your analysis of what constitutes harm is correct: things and actions we may call harmful by one criterion we may instead call beneficial by another.
And yet you claim the word 'good' and its cognates are free of this subjective, judgemental use - that being good is an objective property, for example of the particular god you suppose exists, or of the actions that god supposedly commanded, such as infant genital mutilation.
You see the problem. 'Goodness' is no more an objective property than the 'greatness' predicated of the Maximally Greatest Being (MGB) - the invented god you call the Supreme Being. (Outside a defined context, 'supremacy' has no objective reference either.)
The MGB description of a god - perhaps you agree - is incoherent and leads immediately to contradictions. Great by what criterion, and by what scalar measurement with what objective limits? Is the MGB the maximally greatest pathological genocide and at the same time the maximally greatest benefactor?
To cherry-pick properties and criteria is to limit maximal greatness. And what about all the second and third maximally great beings - and all the minimally great beings? - The MGB claim collapses into farce, as does the 'Supreme Leader' - sorry - 'Being' - as soon as its question-begging assumptions are exposed.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:59 am
by TimeSeeker
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:51 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:43 pm
It is not vague! It means PRECISELY what harm means. Objectively and all.
Is cutting someone "harm"? Is it harm when they cut themselves for fun? Is it harm when a surgeon cuts them?
Is it harm when you let someone make a mistake and get hurt? Is it always even wrong when you let people get hurt on purpose? Learning requires "harm," in many cases, like learning to ride a bike: is that okay? Is it okay that we "harm" children by making them go to school, when they'd rather play video games; or is it harm to let them play video games, instead of sending them to school?
Is sticking a probe into a baby's spine and sucking his brain into a sink "harm," or is it "harm" to deny his mother the right to do it? Is it harm to allow the Luftwaffe to bomb London, or is it worse harm to let the Nazis know you've cracked their codes? Is it worse harm to drop the A-Bomb, or is it worse harm to let the war in the Pacific drag on?
You see the problem. There's no stable definition of what constitutes "harm." And something that could potentially be "harm" often comes packaged with certain human goods. So the key value, "harm" is vacuous. It tells us nothing about morality at all.
Your analysis of what constitutes harm is correct: things and actions we may call harmful by one criterion we may instead call beneficial by another.
And yet you claim the word 'good' and its cognates are free of this subjective, judgemental use - that being good is an objective property, for example of the particular god you suppose exists, or of the actions that god supposedly commanded, such as infant genital mutilation.
You see the problem. 'Goodness' is no more an objective property than the 'greatness' predicated of the Maximally Greatest Being (MGB) - the invented god you call the Supreme Being. (Outside a defined context, 'supremacy' has no objective reference either.)
The MGB description of a god - perhaps you agree - is incoherent and leads immediately to contradictions. Great by what criterion, and by what scalar measurement with what objective limits? Is the MGB the maximally greatest pathological genocide and at the same time the maximally greatest benefactor?
To cherry-pick properties and criteria is to limit maximal greatness. And what about all the second and third maximally great beings - and all the minimally great beings? - The MGB claim collapses into farce, as does the 'Supreme Leader' - sorry - 'Being' - as soon as its question-begging assumptions are exposed.
Aha. Now we are getting somewhere. Ascribing properties!
Do you believe the universe exists, do you believe quarks exist? And would you draw a distinction between existence and being?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:17 am
by uwot
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 amThe MGB claim collapses into farce, as does the 'Supreme Leader' - sorry - 'Being' - as soon as its question-begging assumptions are exposed.
Indeed. One of the most laughable arguments in favour of theism that Mr Can and his type advance, is that atheists have caused the deaths of millions of innocent people in the name of atheism. Even if we accept that as true (which it isn't), the numbers are trifling compared to the
billions of souls that Mr Can believes are being tortured at this very moment, and will be for eternity, because they disagree with an unelected despot.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:23 am
by TimeSeeker
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:17 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 amThe MGB claim collapses into farce, as does the 'Supreme Leader' - sorry - 'Being' - as soon as its question-begging assumptions are exposed.
Indeed. One of the most laughable arguments in favour of theism that Mr Can and his type advance, is that atheists have caused the deaths of millions of innocent people in the name of atheism. Even if we accept that as true (which it isn't), the numbers are trifling compared to the
billions of souls that Mr Can believes are being tortured at this very moment, and will be for eternity, because they disagree with an unelected despot.
You have to counter-balance this with the number of souls who survived and were born because religion helped form communities/societies. And societies fare better against nature. Their rituals/practices/traditions and solidarity is what makes religion. They were the beneficial aspect to it. The God-belief is an epiphenomenon.
That is if you subscribe to the weight of evidence offered by the Lindy effect.
The moral calculus isn't as easy as it seems.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:55 am
by uwot
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:23 amThe moral calculus isn't as easy as it seems.
It is if you can tell the difference between millions and billions.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:55 am
by TimeSeeker
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:55 am
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:23 amThe moral calculus isn't as easy as it seems.
It is if you can tell the difference between millions and billions.
You are pleading to utilitarianism. It is quite perverse to murder one person and harvest their organs in order to save 5 others. But that is just me
Unless, of course the person volunteers. Which is the Jesus myth.
Does the good of the many outweighs the good of the few?
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:17 am
by uwot
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:55 amYou are pleading to utilitarianism.
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:25 am
by TimeSeeker
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:17 am
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:55 amYou are pleading to utilitarianism.
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
Well if you are weighing billions vs millions - you are doing utilitarianism calculus.
For anyone struggling to find centrism you but have to ask these two questions:
Does the good of the few outweigh the good of the many?
Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few?
I can't find it in me to answer anything but "no" to both of the above and end up at individualism.
Primum non nocere. Which is strangely similar to the Wiccan Rede and goes as far back as Paganism.
And in the Qur'an verse 5:32...
Same idea - different camps. And we still think it's a God and not a human problem?
God is just the excuse.
Which is why I vehemently oppose the notion of an objective observer and objectivity as a whole.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:42 am
by uwot
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:25 am
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:17 am
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:55 amYou are pleading to utilitarianism.
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
Well if you are weighing billions vs millions - you are doing utilitarianism calculus.
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:53 am
by TimeSeeker
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:42 am
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:25 am
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:17 am
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
Well if you are weighing billions vs millions - you are doing utilitarianism calculus.
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
I guess this is appropriate.
sociiety.gif
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:00 pm
by uwot
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:06 pm
by TimeSeeker
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:00 pm
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
You keep repeating yourself as if you want me to agree with you
Yes. I agree.if Mr Can ever appealed to utilitarianism. Which he hasn't done in my presence.
You did. Apparently sarcastically.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:21 pm
by uwot
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:06 pm
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:00 pm
Nah. I was just pointing out that Mr Can's appeal to utilitarianism is laughable.
You keep repeating yourself as if you want me to agree with you
I think your paradigm and mine are incommensurable. (I just happen to be working on an article about Thomas Kuhn.) I am resigned to the likelihood that we will not agree about a lot of things.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:06 pmYes. I agree.if Mr Can ever appealed to utilitarianism. Which he hasn't done in my presence.
I doubt you will have to wait long.
Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:31 pm
by TimeSeeker
uwot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:21 pm
I think your paradigm and mine are incommensurable. (I just happen to be working on an article about Thomas Kuhn.) I am resigned to the likelihood that we will not agree about a lot of things.
That may or may not be the case. All models are wrong. Even my current paradigm ( which is a model in and of itself ) is wrong.
But not all wrongs aren't equal:
https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm
What I do promise is that if from my paradigm I can point out a mistake in yours, then I will give you an alternative ( a better tool ) e.g I offer corrective feedback (which you can choose to disregard). Atheists are trashing religion while offering no alternatives. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater etc.
My paradigm addresses more contingencies. It is more complete.