Atheistic Morality, Oh my

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Socrastein, Jan 19, 2006.

  1. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    In short it's a mess......
     
  2. LJoll

    LJoll Valued Member

    Can you give me a link explaining some of their idea? I can't really see where they're coming from?

    Huh?


    I'd also like to point out that I'm not trying to deny all objective truth, just that it has anything to do with morality.
     
  3. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    I'm looking for the argument I had but it's been awhile and the site now only exist as random pages here and there. If I find it or another source I will post it.



    If you said my statement "raping people is wrong" wasn't a declaration to atleast a subjective truth or an intellectually descriptive response to an emotion on my part, you would have to prove that.


    I had that in mind when I wrote it...
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  4. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Well.. there's the thing. i brought up the difference between a priori and a posteriori to get past this..

    Strafio DID say "this is an objective fact about jims preference"

    I interperate this as a subjective fact about Jim. With an aim to make the distinction between subjective facts about people and objective facts about people.

    Both a priori and a posteriori statements can be factual. Describing either as "objectively true statements" is to my mind superfluous. If they didn't like shellfish it would simply be a false statement. The use of objective here is not needed..
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  5. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    The statement that "Jim likes shellfish" correct me if I'm wrong, was meant to show how to be objective wasn't it? If so the use of objective should be noted is all. I mean, if the example was to show that, wouldn't it's use be relevant?

    But with that said, I believe there are objective facts concerning our biology and that's the foundation of the arugument. Humans have a dual nature and are being refered to as objects meaning the content is only half as important as the nature of the argument. Priori and a Posteriori are concerning the nature of knowledge right?

    [edit]

    I would also like to add a critique, the statement is an objective fact about Jim, it only becomes a subjective fact where Jim is concerned. To me it's a matter of objectively stated about v.s. a matter of stated from experience.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  6. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Personally I don't think saying things are objectively true or subjectively true makes much sense (not directed at anyone here)
    . It's not like when things are false they are subjectively false or objectively false is it. Statements themselves are either true or false.
    The only thing strafio established by calling his statement about Jim "objective fact about .. was nothing really.. Just by saying " fact about .." establishes the same thing.

    Bottom line this is decribing subjective characteristics about people through statements
    eg. Jim likes the colour blue

    Different to describing objective characteristics about people through statements
    eg. Jim has blue eyes.

    The truth of the second statement is established with definition. The first we can only understand through an understanding of "liking". Without understanding what it is to like or not like that statement is meaningless to us.

    We don't draw our understanding of liking from definition but experience. I hope that might make what i am saying a little more relevent to the discussion.

    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  7. jroe52

    jroe52 Valued Member

    in college thats not really how they teach atheism. the scary thing about athiests is those without morals... but since nothing is written down or everyone is unique, then its easy to generalize to much. there are some dumbass athiests out thee and there are many great moral atheists as well
     
  8. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    It's merely a matter of showing it doesn't have to do with your preference when stated, that it exist outside of your own opinion.

    We draw our understanding from agreed upon defintions of the words used, so understanding this in my opinion is necessary. We don't draw our understanding of the concept "red is a color" from much more than agreed upon definitions and experience. It's about discerning rather statements are a matter of fact or matter of opinion. Even your statement about jim having blue eyes is a matter of understanding what eyes are, and what blue is.

    Agreed upon definitions and experience are still required for your example; the only thing objective is 'how it refers' to Jims eyes. The idea behind an objectivity has more to do with how you present the information in this case.

    The first and second are only established per thier definitions as true or false. Neither argument escapes that......
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  9. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    How not?
    The 'should' shows that there are better ways of achieving an aim than others. So that could be one definition of practical reason, using reason to guide your action in a way that achieves the aim at hand.
    If I aimed to get a boiled egg, it would be rational to boil the egg and irrational to fry it.
    The former would be an irrational approach to making a boiled egg while the latter would an irrational approach to making a boiled egg.

    Some desires are more important than others.
    Why should that have to be proved?
    It's like the statement "One is a number" - it's not something that's supposed to be rationally proved, it's a condition that has to be in place before reason can happen. If someone genuinely had all desires as absolute equals then practical reason in this respect would be an impossibility.

    I think that at the end of the day we use 'should' in a variety of ways.
    I'll actually conceed that you've forced me to alter my position since the debate started. When the debate started I wanted morality to be just be a result of practical reason when it turns out there there's a lot more to it than that. Now I'm happy to settle for that morality can be treated rationally. That means that even if there are many 'shoulds' out there, only one of them has to be the should of practical reason for the argument to hold.

    So you're asking, given that I've made the deduction, why should my actions follow the conclusions?
    Once again, your scepticism would be equally damaging to other forms of reason as well as practical reason. If I've made the deduction that 2 + 2 = 4 then why should I believe that 2 + 2 = 4?
    Here I'm saying that it's no longer a matter of 'should'.
    The 'should' of practical reason merely distinguishes between rational and irrational action. Whether the person in question acts rationally or irrationally is up to them.

    To say that someone 'should' (as in practical reason 'should') be rational can only be circular - besides, if someone is already refusing to be rational then a rational argument will hardly persuade them and will be quite useless!

    I think I have a point here which might cut into the heart of the debate:
    I claim that every sceptical argument you make against practical reason would be equally damaging to other forms of reason too.
    From now on, when you make a sceptical argument against practical reason, I want you to show how other forms of reason are immune to variations of your argument.
     
  10. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Fine. One a priori statement about practical reason coming up:
    "If you have a choice between two actions, one will lead to happiness and the other will lead to depression, the rational one to pick is the one that leads to happiness."

    This a priori statement is true by the definitions of the words used as they are in our decision-making language/practice.
    Asking "why isn't it rational to do something that makes me miserable." is similar to saying "why isn't it rational to call a green postbox red."
    It's denying the language involved.
    This is why I am accusing LJoll of being sceptical about all kinds of reason, because what he is putting scepticism is is in things that are necessary for any kind of reason.

    Um... it's not a priori - you need to look at the postbox to see whether it is green or red. The statement is a posteriori!
    "Bachelors aren't married" is a priori.

    Well seeing as "The postbox is green" is an a posteriori fact that is objective, maybe the fact that morality is also a posteriori isn't so damaging to my case! :p
     
  11. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    Strafio,

    I have completely gotten the two ideas out of order. Priori knowledge is independent, right? Posteriori is dependent on experience. If that's the case anything defined would fall under Posteriori in argument wouldn't it?

    Never mind, I think I got it sorted now.......
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  12. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Well ok..

    I accept that all language requires agreed definitions to work. you really seems to be missing my point blind.. i'm sorry if i havn't been clear enough. but you have gone off on different tangents when really it is just a simple difference.

    Point at eyes and you define them. Point at blue and you define it (unless someone is colour blind) - still you can define it by pointing to wavelength in the spectrum of light.. all objective things we can point to out in the world..
    If statement/ proposition is drawn from definition like this eg. "all dogs are mammals" as i currently undertand it is thought of as a priori

    now point me to something that defines "like" in the world without pointing me towards peoples subjective experience of the world. If a proposition/statement draws from this it is thought of as a posteriori -as i currently understand it.

    I don't see any need to assert all language draws from our experience. the difference in the propositions being a priori or a posteriori may be further answered for you with this. Don't you agree that seeing the colour red is an objective experience and liking red a subjective one?

    Hope that helps to clarify what i'm getting. As with anything, disregard as you see fit.

    regards.
     
  13. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    A priori knowledge is 'prior' to experience - i.e. truths we can work out by reason alone.
    I think the way to work with definitions is as follows:
    Arguments start with the assumption that we know our language, so an argument that argues from definitions would be a priori - an argument purely from reason.
    However, if you were to question whether someone was using a word correctly then our method for settling this would be a posteriori - looking at how we use the words in real life.

    In the perfectly ideal debate we would be using the exact same language, so there would be the classical clear distinction between a priori arguments (arguments based purely on reason) and a posteriori arguments (those based on empirical experience/demonstrations), but as our language isn't so perfectly syncronised, we sometimes have to question the language being used if we feel that we are talking past each other.
     
  14. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Well I never! The classic argument from ostensive definition!
    As it happens, referring to objects isn't the only kind of language we use.
    I think I see where you're coming from as the word 'objective' came from by being a statement about the 'object', so it seems strange to talk about words like 'like' in terms of objectivity.
    However, 'objective' has evolved a slightly more general meaning since then for when it comes to propositions.

    They say, given that the language is in place, a proposition is objective if it's truth is independent of the speaker and subjective if it depends on the speaker. I've tried to show that practical reason can judged purely by the language being in place and through other objective facts about the world.
    I use the language to show that we rationally ought to do what makes us happy.
    I then use objective facts about human nature that certain conditions are required for human beings to be happy.
    That means there are certain conditions that all humans, if they were rational, would aim for.

    I don't think the experiences can be said to be 'objective' or 'subjective'.
    Only propositions.
    Propositions assume that language is in place.
    If language is in place (which it be the language of describing the empirical world or lanuage for making decisions) then a priori reasoning is possible.
     
  15. WatchfulAbyss

    WatchfulAbyss Active Member

    Nope it's ok, I think strafio's post makes a couple of point's about something being objective that I was trying to get across.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  16. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    that's fine but i accept the rationality of practical reason. that is not what i am really asking about.. What does me being happy have to do with a moral code. A serial killer is obviously happy going about things his way. If that is what makes him happy he isn't making any mistakes in his practical reasoning in the persuit of what makes him happy is he. My point was we can't establish a priori our aims. Not going on a killing spree may make a serial killer depressed. You can't make a blanket a priori statement everyone ought to aim for happiness.. different things make different people happy. Do you really think that people will go out and act the same way to persue happiness. If that is really the case tell me why they aren't :confused:

    I am sceptical of defining happiness strictly in the way you are attempting to. Do you not think maybe you are leaning too far toward trying to define language and describe how we use it in an empirical way where there is no real need to and no means to empirically show you are right about how people really define their happiness.

    If having a couple of pints of lager a night makes me happy does it follow it will make you happy. ought you drink a couple pints of lager a night, should you ?

    Happiness is really describing something subjective no?



    Ok LOL.. that's the last time i use your examples without due care and attention! :p

    with a bit more thought i should have said " postboxes in the uk are either red or green"

    You will know that is true by definition, you won't have to go outside to check anything. * unless they might also be another colour that i'm not aware of.. :woo:
    K? :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  17. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Ok that's interesting. But to work them out with reason still draws the truth of the proposition from the definitions right - how we understand them. I admit i was using very simplistic definitions for them..

    C'est la vie :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  18. LJoll

    LJoll Valued Member

    'Why should it have to be proved?' Because it's the fundamental issue of the debate. You claim that it's like "one is a number", yet I see no reason to believe that it is. In fact it's completely different. The fact that "one is a number" doesn't need to be proved is that a "number" isn't something that is defined outside of what "one" means. Things like "should", "aim" and "desire" and not related by definition. You've simply added this in to make your theory plausible, even though it is completely untrue.

    But is there any logical reason why the "should" of practical reason should be followed ahead of any other "should"? If not, you have no basis from which to make a rational decision.

    2+2=4 is true by definition. There is nothing that defines how we should act. Do you believe that there is an objective reason why we should choose behave rationally rather than irrationally?

    But surely objective truth shouldn't be dependent on whether you believe it or not? Or are you simply suggesting that it's possible to create an internally coherent method of decision making?


    Fine. You have used the word "should" so that by definition it means the best way to achieve our aims.

    So:We aim to achieve X
    Y will help us achieve X
    We should do Y is true by definition.

    I can agree with this. However I think the word "should" no longer tells us how to live, because you have defined it in terms of aims instead of how-we-should live.

    On the other hand. Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore Socrates is moral. This argument still holds up because I am not trying to take a word defined in terms of objective facts into a subjective domain where it has no meaning.
     
  19. LJoll

    LJoll Valued Member

    It's odd that you should say that. Since I've been studying philosophy I've found hundreds and hundreds of arguments trying to justify what we do and believe logically. If anything the direction of my idea have been driven away from the typical philosophical tradition by my dissatisfaction with philosophy.
     
  20. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    fair enough.. I was attempting to use them to link the difference in the experience to the language used to describe them. would you agree that there is a difference in the experience that correlates with the language? i think maybe it can be said, just that you wouldn't say it :)

    I promise you I have had no prior experience of it, and therefore stands to reason! :D
     

Share This Page