For the life of mine... I cannot understand you!

[Spock]

I used terms which imply a human user insofar as I was talking about artifacts (things made by humans). But once an artifact is made, you can talk about the goodness or badness of the thing in itself, independent of what humans feel about. Also, humans could hypothetically not exist of course, and we could (hypothetically) talk about animals having good or bad things happen to them (which you seem to agree about). A deer could get wounded by another animal … and that would be bad for the deer, no matter what human user may be in existence or not. Now, can natural, inanimate things have a kind of ontological goodness that can be taken away? I’m not sure what the metaphysicians would say about that … because I suppose that a natural, inanimate thing will always been a natural, inanimate thing no matter how much you smash it. It doesn’t lose it’s nature as an inanimate thing … so I suppose you can’t take away it’s ontological goodness. On the other hand, you could say that a planet getting sucked into a black hole is bad for the planet, right? In any case, I’m not sure what you mean by “you still use terms that imply a human user” as an indication that ontological goodness is a faulty concept. An artifact (like a hammer) can be used by a human or not, but whether it’s used or not is actually irrelevant to whether it’s a good hammer or not.

My number one problem is that your “ontological goodness” is undefined. The term I would use is “usefulness” - which has several implications: first a user, who, by definition is a living being. (It would make no sense to say that the Sun “uses” the planets in some way). Second the usefulness of an object depends on the purpose of its usage (once again there is a stipulation of user and his intentions). One may use a piece of rock to break a walnut, or may use a hammer, or even a microscope. All three objects can be used. Are they “equally good” for this purpose?

In a completely inanimate universe the conscpt of “usefulness” never ecen comes up. I suspect that your “ontological goodness” somehow involves the stipulation of an “essence”, which is yet another undefined concept.

The term** “natural law”** is a very common one throughout the history of thought. Many atheists have used the term as well. It refers to the objective standards of how one should act as found in human nature. This is distinguished from** “civil law**” which are artificially instituted rules that may correspond to the natural law or may not both in good ways and possibly bad ways. Ideally, civil law should create rules that help people conform their lives to natural law. There is absolutely no other reason for civil law to exist other than for this reason.

Well, just because many people use a term, that does not lend credence to its usage. (Too many people are simply scared to cry out: The emperor has no clothes!") And of course, there is no universal, unchanging human “nature”. Civil law is just a collection of rules (backed by force) which are found useful for curtailing some aspects of human nature.

Once again, your use of the term “helpful” is still amorphous. Things can be helpful to people in many ways. You can help someone commit crimes … but is that good? You need to come up with a better word because it’s way too ambiguous. In any case, you claim that “a law that explicitly forbids a helpful behavior towards others is immoral” seems to be an absolute statement and an indication that you believe in natural law. Although, you add “in my book” but I have no idea what you mean by that.

It means that there are people who disagree. Those whose mantra is “my country, right or wrong”. And those who say the pompous: “the law of the land”.

It could be generally accepted depending on what group of Nazis you’re looking at.

Yes and for some groups, it was. They considered it their moral obligation to exterminate the Jews - the “killers of Christ”.

“In that society keeping slaves was moral” … what? No, it wasn’t. I hope you don’t believe that.

It was moral for them, in their opinion.

Having slaves is never moral. People claimed that it was moral, but it actually wasn’t. The civil law here was contradicting the natural law. If you don’t agree with this, then you would have to say, “I think slavery was okay back then.” But, you’re probably not saying that. Or are you?

No, I am not saying that. But I admit that my revulsion is based on my subjective value system.

You could also say since some people believed the earth was flat back then, you could say, “The earth was flat back then.” Even though that time is now gone, we take the “scientific highground” and condemn that idea.

No, it was not, but they believed it was. Some people still do. The difference is that the roundness of the Earth can be demonstrated objectively, but the moral conviction is subjective.

I guess you’re asking “Why would God allow so many bad things to be done by so many characters in the Bible” right? Not only slavery but also keeping concubines and whatnot. Well, in short,** God allowed this but did not approve of it.** It was always morally wrong, but salvation history proceeded slowly and gently and gradually re-established the natural law among mankind. In short. I could explain more about this if you want.

If he did, he sure neglected to point it out in his unchanging word… and moreover he seemed to say and do the exact opposite.

So, you are saying that the [inverse] golden rule is a truth of objective morality (congratulations, you believe in the existence of the natural law), but you’re saying that some people don’t accept it (also very true). So, then you agree that morality doesn’t change, but that people can make artificial laws that claim to follow nature but really don’t. If you say that, we are in profound agreement. If you’re not saying that, boy, it sure looks like you are (or, at least, sometimes).

No, I still do not say that. I only say that in our current society it is the best (in the mathematical sense) strategy to go by, which will allow us to maximize our individual freedom (something that is in great favor these days). Even today not all societies value individual freedom. In those societies the conformity to some standard is more valued.

Continues below…

 

[Spock]

Summed up:

there is no universal and unchanging human nature. There are no universal standards to go by. Each group (small or large) considers their rule-set as moral, and may consider other rule-sets as immoral. No one is obliged to agree with someone else’s rule-set, but they should have the intellectual integrity to admit that their rule-set is just as subjective and arbitrary as everyone else’s. We all believe in our own morality, and condemn those who dare to differ. The funny stuff is that we all consider “moral” what we were told in our formative years, when we had no intellectual capacity to criticize. We are all “brainwashed” by our parents and the society around us to accept the current value system. It takes an awful lot of courage to question the currently acceped norms and the result is usually ostracism, sometimes much worse.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Summed up:

there is no universal and unchanging human nature. There are no universal standards to go by.

This is your “belief” correct?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It takes an awful lot of courage to question the currently acceped norms and the result is usually ostracism, sometimes much worse.

Two comments:

1. This statement itself demonstrates the difference between “norm” and “normative judgment”. Courage is not the norm in our society, and yet you seem to think that it is something commendable – dare I say, virtuous – in being courageous.
2. “The result is usually ostracism, sometimes much worse.” Jesus would agree with you.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Two comments:

1. This statement itself demonstrates the difference between “norm” and “normative judgment”. Courage is not the norm in our society, and yet you seem to think that it is something commendable – dare I say, virtuous – in being courageous.
2. “The result is usually ostracism, sometimes much worse.” Jesus would agree with you.

Prodigal Son, thats a very good observation.

 

[theistgal]

This is the argument of the fifth officer from the parable: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html … not convincing at all.

Thanks for that link - that’s a great story!

It must be fairly new. I haven’t visited IIDB a whole lot since the big forum blowup. Maybe I should take another look, eh?

 

[Spock]

This is your “belief” correct?

Anyone who has a little knowledge of history will reach the same conclusion.

 

[Spock]

Two comments:

1. This statement itself demonstrates the difference between “norm” and “normative judgment”. Courage is not the norm in our society, and yet you seem to think that it is something commendable – dare I say, virtuous – in being courageous.

It is my opinion, yes. Others may disgree.

1. “The result is usually ostracism, sometimes much worse.” Jesus would agree with you.

What is the relevance? According to some passages of the NT, yes, Jesus was a great “reformer”, according to others he was a “conservative”.

 

[fhansen]

What is the relevance? According to some passages of the NT, yes, Jesus was a great “reformer”, according to others he was a “conservative”.

It takes courage to stand up for the truth whether that means agreeing with accepted norms in some cases or questioning them in others. Either way, especially nowadays, you can face ostracism-or worse.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What is the relevance? According to some passages of the NT, yes, Jesus was a great “reformer”, according to others he was a “conservative”.

I don’t see any argument for the “Jesus was conservative” position. I have no doubt that, were He alive today, He wouldn’t strike us as conservative now, either. He would have harsh and condemning words for those who display for all the world their holiness, all the while happily condemning others. He would spend time among sinners, going where “self-respecting” Christians would never go. His harshest words were always for the hypocrites.

I am quite sure many (but not all) Christians would roundly condemn Him. Those who are only Christians because of indoctrination, as it were, not because of a relationship to Christ, might consider Him the worst possible type of person: a man with a clear message of hope for the sinner, and a clear message of judgment for the “saved”.

Out of curiosity, are you thinking of any particular person or group that claims that Christ was conservative? Or any particular Scripture passage?

 

[Spock]

I don’t see any argument for the “Jesus was conservative” position. I have no doubt that, were He alive today, He wouldn’t strike us as conservative now, either. He would have harsh and condemning words for those who display for all the world their holiness, all the while happily condemning others. He would spend time among sinners, going where “self-respecting” Christians would never go. His harshest words were always for the hypocrites.

I am quite sure many (but not all) Christians would roundly condemn Him. Those who are only Christians because of indoctrination, as it were, not because of a relationship to Christ, might consider Him the worst possible type of person: a man with a clear message of hope for the sinner, and a clear message of judgment for the “saved”.

Out of curiosity, are you thinking of any particular person or group that claims that Christ was conservative? Or any particular Scripture passage?

Two come to my mind. One is where he said that he did not come to aboilsh the law, rather to fulfill it. The other one where he urges to render unto ceasar…
These are pretty conservative sentiments, to uphold the status quo and to respect authority.
But generally speaking I agree with your post.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Two come to my mind. One is where he said that he did not come to aboilsh the law, rather to fulfill it.

But the point is that the Judaic law is not fulfilled by the letter of the law, but by its spirit. The law was put in place because the people had hardened their hearts; when, as the prophecy said, we are given “hearts of flesh” instead of hearts of stone, then is the law fulfilled. But this is only accomplished through Jesus (who regularly broke Judaic law, if the law no longer served any purpose).

The other one where he urges to render unto ceasar…

I’ve written a long article on this one, although I haven’t gotten anyone to publish it yet. The topic is quite interesting. Here’s an excerpt from my essay:

There is nothing revolutionary in rebellion, for all our saying so. To rebel is one of the most natural actions in the world. The child storms away from his parents. The soldier abandons his post. The wife goes to sleep on the couch. You can see rebellion every day; as such, it becomes quite prosaic.

But while a rebel is not revolutionary, a servant is. Servants see overt revolution as an option, but they discard it as an option that is neither interesting nor tenable. One is reminded of a Bob Dylan lyric: “You gotta serve somebody.” Chosen servants realize that – however unwittingly – those who unthinkingly conform are servile to their foolishness, while those who deliberately rebel are servile to their defiance. Only he who has chosen to serve knows his master. …

The human meaning of revolution can be illuminated by comparison to its homonym, revolution – that is, the act of revolving. For man to make a revolution brings man back to the same crisis he began with. It has been said that the only successful revolutions are revolutions of the middle class – and invariably, the middle class pulls the financial backing of the revolution before either liberte, egalite, or fraternite have been installed. This “progress” has been nothing but a game of hopscotch between different portions of the bourgeoisie; the poor are left behind. Mankind, for all its talk of progress, seems to be governed largely by centripetal force. …

But here we find a paradox. For Christ did not come into the world leading revolutions, nor did his preaching advocate revolution (at least not in a political sense). Rather, we find him carefully choosing his words, so as not to be seen as a revolutionary. He is challenged about whether Jews should pay taxes to Caesar – a question that could land him, on the one hand, without a following, and, on the other hand, without a head – and he answers in the form of a servant: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s; give to God what is God’s.”

Taken from a sophist’s point of view, this answer creates all sorts of ambiguity. Perhaps Caesar – in the eternal reality – has no possessions whatsoever, and therefore deserves no tax. Perhaps money is of no importance in Christ’s worldview, and should be returned to its (presumably sinful) masters. Perhaps we ought to read this passage alongside the passage of the rich young man; if we give everything to God, well then, there’s nothing left for Caesar. Perhaps – and this is the most plausible “sophisticated” argument – Jesus speaks of giving money to Caesar, but giving Caesar nothing else. (Give the idol back the emblem of idolatry.)

It seems to me that these interpretations are unnecessary, and potentially dangerous. It is of no account whether the Caesar at the time was a particularly just or unjust man, whether he “deserved” allegiance. Christ was setting forth for us a principle. The state is, within the temporal order of things, entrusted with our possessions. (Notice that I use the phrase “entrusted with,” not “entitled to”). Within certain limits, they have charge over us – just as our father and mother once had charge over us, just as the teacher is meant to have charge over the student.

The revolution Christ was leading was in people’s hearts, not in a nation. He rejected currently accepted norms, not in order to replace them with other norms, but in order to replace norm-based behavior with Christ-based behavior. The question “What would Jesus do?” is actually quite central to the faith, so it peeves me off when people marginalize it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Anyone who has a little knowledge of history will reach the same conclusion.

This is your belief correct?

 

[Areopagite]

With respect to the ontological goodness debate, I would agree with you, Spock, that “usefulness” never pertains to a completely inanimate universe, but I am saying that the the word “goodness” is used [by everybody] in other ways than simply being synonymous with “usefulness.”

By the way, Definition of essence: “That which makes a thing what it is.” In short, “essence” is the same thing as “nature” (such as how it’s used in the term “human nature”).

Well, just because many people use a term, that does not lend credence to its usage. (Too many people are simply scared to cry out: The emperor has no clothes!")

What? You’re saying that a word’s usage should not be determined by how it’s used? How the heck are we to figure out how to use a word besides looking at how it’s used? I’m not a fan of just redefining words to suit my own end and neglect how the word is actually used by the majority of people. I’m sort of with the people on that one.

And of course, there is no universal, unchanging human “nature”.

Such an assertion … and without any shred of support. I know several professors of history and all of them believe that human nature is unchanging. I’m actually a teacher of history myself, and I have no idea what you’re talking about. Could you help me out here?

Civil law is just a collection of rules (backed by force) which are found useful for curtailing some aspects of human nature.

For the purpose of what? Why curtail aspects of human nature? What’s it all for?

Yes and for some groups, it was. They considered it their moral obligation to exterminate the Jews - the “killers of Christ”.

And I would deny that they had any moral obligation of any kind. I would be right. Just like I would be right when I say “the earth is round.” I still don’t see what you’re saying. Just because people can sound pompous when they say something doesn’t mean it’s false or subjective. It may, however, simply cause what they say to be unattractive.

It was moral for them, in their opinion.

Sure, you could say, “It was moral for them, in their opinion” but that doesn’t mean “It was moral for them in truth.” Obviously.

No, I am not saying that. But I admit that my revulsion is based on my subjective value system.

By “subjective value system” you simply mean “what you think is right and wrong” I suppose. Now, I ask you, WHY do you think certain things are right and wrong? What do you base it on?!

Are you saying that extermination of the Jews is just immoral for some people and not immoral for others because some have differing “subjective value systems”? I have no idea what you’re talking about!

No, it was not, but they believed it was. Some people still do. The difference is that the roundness of the Earth can be demonstrated objectively, but the moral conviction is subjective.

I would disagree. Your assertion that “moral conviction can’t be demonstrated objectively” has not been proven. Once again, just because people disagree about what morality is, doesn’t mean morality is entirely subjective … because I could say the same about scientific truths. Can you prove that morality is subjective? Why do you say this? And, I’m still confused what you mean by subjective. You haven’t clearly defined that yet (and if you have, I apologize for missing it).

Also, your assertion here seems to disagree with other things you’ve been saying … you have, for example, seemed to admit an objective standard for what is harmful and what is not, and that if harm is caused to another without consent, then it is evil. So there, you seem to suggest morality is objective. So what’s going on?

Then, you said somewhere else that the principle of [something] is objective but the acceptance is not. I don’t know what you mean by that. Isn’t that true with scientific truths as well?

No, I still do not say that. I only say that in our current society it is the best (in the mathematical sense) strategy to go by, which will allow us to maximize our individual freedom (something that is in great favor these days). Even today not all societies value individual freedom. In those societies the conformity to some standard is more valued.

Maximize individual freedom! It looks like there is some kind objective thing that you believe in with which civil law should be gauged! Right? Do you think civil law shouldn’t be random rules but maybe have some kind of purpose to them … like, for example, preserving freedom (or something)?

There are no universal standards to go by. Each group (small or large) considers their rule-set as moral, and may consider other rule-sets as immoral. No one is obliged to agree with someone else’s rule-set, but they should have the intellectual integrity to admit that their rule-set is just as subjective and arbitrary as everyone else’s.

Wow. For someone who asserts there are no universal standards to go by, you sure lay down some universal standards here (like “no one is obliged to agree with someone else’s rule-set, but they should have the intellectual integrity … etc.”)

We all believe in our own morality, and condemn those who dare to differ.

Are you saying here that we should do this, or that we do do this but shouldn’t, or are you saying that we do do this because we can’t do otherwise?

The funny stuff is that we all consider “moral” what we were told in our formative years, when we had no intellectual capacity to criticize. We are all “brainwashed” by our parents and the society around us to accept the current value system. It takes an awful lot of courage to question the currently acceped norms and the result is usually ostracism, sometimes much worse.

I was raised believing the world was round … is that brainwashing? Sometimes, we can be told the truth when we’re young. But usually it’s mixed. I was told a whole lot of garbage that I had to get over, but I found a lot of it was true as well, true as the shape of the earth. Your claim that morality cannot be objectively discovered seems to be the main issue here, and until you do that, you don’t really have an argument. I would suggest start by defining “subjectivity” and how it necessarily relates to moral questions, or something.

 

[Spock]

With respect to the ontological goodness debate, I would agree with you, Spock, that “usefulness” never pertains to a completely inanimate universe, but I am saying that the the word “goodness” is used [by everybody] in other ways than simply being synonymous with “usefulness.”

In a colloquial usage it may. But I think we are attempting to conduct a bit deeper conversation here, so the colloquial definition does not necessarily apply. But I am not stubborn. I am willing to follow your line of thought, if only I could understand what you mean. For example, you might say that “it is good for the bebble to be polished nice, smooth and round by the ocean waves”. Or, of course you may assert the opposite: “it is good for the pebble to be left alone”. I have no idea which is your assertion. What the heck does “good” mean here?

By the way, Definition of essence: “That which makes a thing what it is.” In short, “essence” is the same thing as “nature” (such as how it’s used in the term “human nature”).

This is another vague definition - vague to the point of being meaningless.

What? You’re saying that a word’s usage should not be determined by how it’s used? How the heck are we to figure out how to use a word besides looking at how it’s used? I’m not a fan of just redefining words to suit my own end and neglect how the word is actually used by the majority of people. I’m sort of with the people on that one.

With caution. Here is an example. Two teenagers talk and one of them says: “And then I like: man, the happening last nite was like, reeeeal baaad”. The meanings of words get established through communication, and those teenagers understand each other perfectly.

Such an assertion … and without any shred of support. I know several professors of history and all of them believe that human nature is unchanging. I’m actually a teacher of history myself, and I have no idea what you’re talking about. Could you help me out here?

What is that elusive thing: “human nature”? To be selfish or altrustic? To be heroic or cowardly? To be gluttonous or frugal? Which attributes of of “human” describes the “essence” of humanness?

And I would deny that they had any moral obligation of any kind. I would be right.

Would you?** Let me play the devil’s advocate. I am saying now that slavery was moral in the US two hundred years ago. I am open to arguments to be convinced. Bring them on.**

Sure, you could say, “It was moral for them, in their opinion” but that doesn’t mean “It was moral for them in truth.” Obviously.

Convince me, as I said above.

By “subjective value system” you simply mean “what you think is right and wrong” I suppose. Now, I ask you, WHY do you think certain things are right and wrong? What do you base it on?!

I base it on what I was taught in my formative years. Much later I thought them through and found them reasonable, so I stick with them.

Are you saying that extermination of the Jews is just immoral for some people and not immoral for others because some have differing “subjective value systems”? I have no idea what you’re talking about!

Come on. How many times do I have to repeat: those people considered it moral, from their perspective. I deny the existence of absolute, unchanging morality.

I would disagree. Your assertion that “moral conviction can’t be demonstrated objectively” has not been proven.

A universal neagtive cannot be proven You say that “morality can be objectively demonstrated”. This is a positive assertion, so it can be proven. Go and do it.

And, I’m still confused what you mean by subjective.

People call something moral, if they agree with it. That is all.

Maximize individual freedom! It looks like there is some kind objective thing that you believe in with which civil law should be gauged!

In these days in some societies. In other ages, or in different socities it was not.

Your claim that morality cannot be objectively discovered seems to be the main issue here, and until you do that, you don’t really have an argument.

Go ahead and prove your positive claim to the contrary. A universal negative cannot be proven.

 

[Areopagite]

Sorry, Spock, for the long radio silence. If you’re still interested … here’s my reply. I apologize if I’m being vague and unhelpful … I’m not doing a very good job. You’re asking a lot of questions, and my mental stamina doesn’t hold up too well enough to be very eloquent on these very big issues all the time.

For example, you might say that “it is good for the pebble to be polished nice, smooth and round by the ocean waves”. Or, of course you may assert the opposite: “it is good for the pebble to be left alone”. I have no idea which is your assertion. What the heck does “good” mean here?

You may have a point here. And this is because inanimate things will always continue to be inanimate no matter what you do to it (but that’s not true for living things). My point was that ontological goodness is not subjective or relative or necessarily always based on human use (contrary to your claim) … and this is seen mostly clearly with living things (which you seem to agree with, sometimes). A deer breaking its leg is bad for the deer because it makes it less able to be what well-functioning deer. This is ontological goodness, not moral goodness. Thus there is goodness independent of moral issues. That’s all I’m saying.

This [essence is that which makes something what it is] is another vague definition - vague to the point of being meaningless.

It struck me as vague at first, but after awhile, it made a lot of sense to me. I don’t blame you for thinking that.

I could ask, What makes a computer a computer? Obviously, many things. The entirety of those things make up a computer’s essence. A simpler example is what makes a triangle? A figure with three sides (right? Unless my geometry knowledge is horrendously off)? Thus, “a figure with three sides” is the essence of a triangle, for “a figure with three sides” is what makes a triangle what it is. Is this unreasonable?

Now, if you look at a computer and notice it is a Dell, would you say that “being a Dell” is part of the essence of a computer? No. Likewise, is “scalene” part of the essence of a triangle? No. These are not essentially to those things, though they are able to have those characteristics (you could call them accidents in metaphysical terminology). So, when we want to define something, we need to get at the essence of something, and not add extraneous details. If we include items as a necessary part of the essence of something when in fact they are not necessary, then misunderstandings and misinformation arises. Essence is a very important and key concept to thinking.

What is that elusive thing: “human nature”? To be selfish or altrustic? To be heroic or cowardly? To be gluttonous or frugal? Which attributes of of “human” describes the “essence” of humanness?

One perennial definition in philosophy of “human” is a “rational animal.” This of course can be explained further in encyclopedic detail, so I’ll await further instructions until I proceed.

Well, I will mention this though: all goodness (for humans) is based on this definition. What is good for a human is what is good for our rationality and animality. Sometimes, both cannot be satisfied every single time (but sometimes they can), and it is our rationality which is higher that should be sought after for its perfection. Virtue (which is a kind of human goodness) should be gauged by how it affects our reason primarily. Gluttony is an excess that causes our reason to be obscured. Likewise, intense frugality can do much the same. That is why Aristotle said natural virtue resides between extremes. He said courage lies between cowardice and recklessness. And I could go on forever-ish, but I’ll spare you (Read Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, one of his best and most accessible works).

You would agree though that there is such a thing as “human nature” or “human essence” though, right? ** If you don’t, then how do you distinguish between humans and non-humans? ** Just because you may not thoroughly know what amounts to human nature, you probably have at least a vague and intuitive idea, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to distinguish human beings from trees.

I deny the existence of absolute, unchanging morality.

And I still don’t know why. I’m sorry. It might be my fault. I don’t know exactly what to talk about because you haven’t made it clear why you think morality is changeable. What you have often said is “Morality changes because people’s idea of morality changes.” But surely, that’s a horrible premise (If people’s idea of a thing changes, then the thing itself changes … obviously fallacious). You need to make it clear and crisp what premise you are using that shows morality to be changeable and non-absolute.

Continued on next post …

 

[Areopagite]

With caution. Here is an example. Two teenagers talk and one of them says: “And then I like: man, the happening last nite was like, reeeeal baaad”. The meanings of words get established through communication, and those teenagers understand each other perfectly.

I don’t understand you at all.

Would you?** Let me play the devil’s advocate. I am saying now that slavery was moral in the US two hundred years ago. I am open to arguments to be convinced. Bring them on.**

In your hypothetical example, I would ask you why thought slavery could be justified back then. I need to know specifics on what a slave-owner believed before I went about disproving them. A lot of the time (I think), people tried justifying slavery of African Americans because they thought they were less than human.

This is a very important point, because it shows that morality is based on the natures of things. The slave-owners, presumably, thought that humans should not be slaves, and that since African Americans were less than human, they could be enslaved.

The problem then is proving that African American are humans. Hopefully, you will agree that they are. The reasons why one may not could be various reasons. Once again, I need specifics in your hypothetical example on what you hypothetically believe, lest I address issues that aren’t an issue with you.

One possible answer that might satisfy you: enslaving humans is treating humans like irrational animals, and thus does not respect their nature (as rational animals). Does that help? Does that answer it for you? If not, that’s fine, I’ll just politely ask of you more specifics on what you’re asking.

People call something moral, if they agree with it. That is all.

Well, yeah. Just like they call something “true” if they agree with it. But, just as there are reasons (either good or bad) why people hold certain things to be true, there are reasons (either good or bad) why people hold certain things to be moral.

In response to: “Maximize individual freedom! It looks like there is some kind objective thing that you believe in with which civil law should be gauged!”

In these days in some societies. In other ages, or in different socities it was not.

You’re saying that in some societies the maximization of individual freedom should not be the goal of some civil law? Or, are you saying that some societies don’t have that as the goal of civil law? If that’s what you mean, I agree with you (obviously) … but, then, what goal then should civil law aim at? Is law completely arbitrary and meaningless without any purpose? Is there a good use of law and a bad use of law? If there is, then there is an objective standard to which law should conform … in other words, there exists a natural law, separate from individual civil laws. Right?

A universal negative cannot be proven You say that “morality can be objectively demonstrated”. This is a positive assertion, so it can be proven. Go and do it.

Sorry, but what strange book of logic do you get these claims? First of all, why do you think that a universal negative cannot be proven? I certainly don’t think that. Can you prove that a universal negative cannot be proven? Actually, I’ll save you the trouble: you can’t. For the statement “A Universal Negative cannot be proven” is a universal negative. Thus, that statement is either wrong or a matter of unprovable faith.

Also, not all positive assertions can be proven. Unless I misread you when you say “This is a positive assertion, so it can be proven.”

In any case, some positive propositions can be proven, like “Morality is objective” which is the topic at hand.

I’ll try to give you the idea again on how morality is objectively founded. First of all, **moral goodness is largely based on ontological goodness **(though they are different). This is because how one should act depends on what one is and what the thing is toward which the action is aimed. This involves then finding out what human nature/essence is. This is because ontological goodness is determined by how much it fulfills our human nature (i.e. makes a more human, perfects us as humans), rather than what makes us less human (e.g. makes us more like irrational animals). You seem to suggest that there is an objective standard of human nature and ontological goodness when you admitted that “harm” is objective and independent of consent and whatnot. Harm is meaningless unless there is an objective essence existing or the thing being harmed. Harm would be what takes away from fulfilling human nature. There is no other way to define it. Thus ontological goodness is objective.

Now, morality has to do with human action. It is based on ontological goodness because the moral goodness is determined by how much an action helps fulfill human nature. Actions that dehumanizes people are evil actions, whereas actions that betters people (makes them more perfect humans) are good actions. Thus, if human nature is objective, moral goodness is also objective.

That’s another short summary of the whole deal. See if that helps. I may be missing your questions again. I hope you agree with some of the stuff I said and give you some understanding of why we and many others think the way we do.

 

[Spock]

Sorry, Spock, for the long radio silence. If you’re still interested … here’s my reply. I apologize if I’m being vague and unhelpful … I’m not doing a very good job. You’re asking a lot of questions, and my mental stamina doesn’t hold up too well enough to be very eloquent on these very big issues all the time.

Not a problem. I read you five by five.

You may have a point here. And this is because inanimate things will always continue to be inanimate no matter what you do to it (but that’s not true for living things). My point was that ontological goodness is not subjective or relative or necessarily always based on human use (contrary to your claim) … and this is seen mostly clearly with living things (which you seem to agree with, sometimes). A deer breaking its leg is bad for the deer because it makes it less able to be what well-functioning deer. This is ontological goodness, not moral goodness. Thus there is goodness independent of moral issues. That’s all I’m saying.

And that is what I said, too. So we are in agreement. We call something “good” if it “furthers” life, and call something “bad” if it is contrary to life. Of course the whole picture is a bit more complicated. The deer with a broken leg is bad for the deer, but it can be good for the predator. And since the predators keep the deer population in check, ultimately it is good have predators. There are levels and levels of hierarchies to examine.

I could ask, What makes a computer a computer? Obviously, many things. The entirety of those things make up a computer’s essence. A simpler example is what makes a triangle? A figure with three sides (right? Unless my geometry knowledge is horrendously off)? Thus, “a figure with three sides” is the essence of a triangle, for “a figure with three sides” is what makes a triangle what it is. Is this unreasonable?

Now, if you look at a computer and notice it is a Dell, would you say that “being a Dell” is part of the essence of a computer? No. Likewise, is “scalene” part of the essence of a triangle? No. These are not essentially to those things, though they are able to have those characteristics (you could call them accidents in metaphysical terminology). So, when we want to define something, we need to get at the essence of something, and not add extraneous details. If we include items as a necessary part of the essence of something when in fact they are not necessary, then misunderstandings and misinformation arises. Essence is a very important and key concept to thinking.

What you say is all true, but it does not dig deep enough. “Essentially” (pardon for the pun) you perform an abstraction, and separate the “important” features from the “non-important” ones - which is correct. Where the problem lies is that the “important” part does not exist in a vacuum, it is intricately related to some “use”.

An example: the telephone’s “essence” is to allow a conversation with someone far away. That is the “essence” of the phone for the user. The conversation is the information, and the “noise” on the line is just… noise. However, for the engineer, who examines the line for clarity, the ongoing conversations are simply “noise”, and the actual noise on the line is the pertinent information. You see, there is again no “abstract essence”. It all depends on what you are interested in.

For a buyer, who wants good tasting, delicious apples the essence of the apple is “good taste”. For the merchant, who wants to sell the apples, the essence is the “pretty look”, so the buyer will be enticed to buy. If the apple happens to be rotten on the inside is of no relevance for the merchant.

One perennial definition in philosophy of “human” is a “rational animal.” This of course can be explained further in encyclopedic detail, so I’ll await further instructions until I proceed.

Yes, but this is very generic. You could also say that humans are the only animals who believe in supernatural. To paraphrase Forrest Gump: “human is as human does” - which is not helpful.

And I still don’t know why. I’m sorry. It might be my fault. I don’t know exactly what to talk about because you haven’t made it clear why you think morality is changeable. What you have often said is “Morality changes because people’s idea of morality changes.” But surely, that’s a horrible premise (If people’s idea of a thing changes, then the thing itself changes … obviously fallacious).

No, the “thing” as you say does not change, only its **perception **or **evaluation **does. We usually consider cannibalism “wrong”, but in some dire circumstances it is not wrong at all.

Will continue later…

 

[Spock]

In your hypothetical example, I would ask you why thought slavery could be justified back then. I need to know specifics on what a slave-owner believed before I went about disproving them. A lot of the time (I think), people tried justifying slavery of African Americans because they thought they were less than human.

This is a very important point, because it shows that morality is based on the natures of things. The slave-owners, presumably, thought that humans should not be slaves, and that since African Americans were less than human, they could be enslaved.

The problem then is proving that African American are humans. Hopefully, you will agree that they are. The reasons why one may not could be various reasons. Once again, I need specifics in your hypothetical example on what you hypothetically believe, lest I address issues that aren’t an issue with you.

One possible answer that might satisfy you: enslaving humans is treating humans like irrational animals, and thus does not respect their nature (as rational animals). Does that help? Does that answer it for you? If not, that’s fine, I’ll just politely ask of you more specifics on what you’re asking.

That pretty much sums it up. The slaveholders believed (strongly believed) that the blacks are an inferior “race” (btw. racism was invented by the Brits, the Germans just borrowed it) and they were not fit to be anything but slaves. They used some passages from the Bible to justify their actions. Of course I agree with your reasoning, but the slaveholders would not.

Well, yeah. Just like they call something “true” if they agree with it. But, just as there are reasons (either good or bad) why people hold certain things to be true, there are reasons (either good or bad) why people hold certain things to be moral.

No argument. Well said.

You’re saying that in some societies the maximization of individual freedom should not be the goal of some civil law? Or, are you saying that some societies don’t have that as the goal of civil law? If that’s what you mean, I agree with you (obviously) … but, then, what goal then should civil law aim at? Is law completely arbitrary and meaningless without any purpose? Is there a good use of law and a bad use of law? If there is, then there is an objective standard to which law should conform … in other words, there exists a natural law, separate from individual civil laws. Right?

Not quite, but pretty close. In our time, most of the Western societies hold the prevalent opinion that individual freedom is precious, and it should be protected. But not all current societies agree. For example in Singapore most people prefer a strong, autocratic government, which curtails individual freedom, but enhances stability. It is quite obvious that freedom can bring instability, and that an enforced stability decreases freedom. Some people (and societies) prefer freedom, some others prefer stability. Which also speaks of the lack of homogenous human nature. Human nature is much more complicated than just being ratinal animals.

As another example, under the fallen communist regimes everyone was equally poor (relative term, they were quite well-off compared to Bangla-Desh) and there was strong sense of security. People had the “right” to work, their jobs were secure, anyone could walk unmolested in the streets, even young girls, at night. It was a police state with very little crime. With the change all that disappeared. There is a lot of crime, no job security, there are some ultra-rich people. It cannot be helped. There is no state with a strong police force and a lot of personal freedom. These are contradictory. And yes, there are many people who miss the old security, and cannot live with too much freedom. After all, freedom brings responsibility, and many people abhor it. This also speaks against a universal human nature.

Sorry, but what strange book of logic do you get these claims? First of all, why do you think that a universal negative cannot be proven? I certainly don’t think that. Can you prove that a universal negative cannot be proven? Actually, I’ll save you the trouble: you can’t. For the statement “A Universal Negative cannot be proven” is a universal negative. Thus, that statement is either wrong or a matter of unprovable faith.

Actually it is a very positive statement. Using a little different words: “nonexistence cannot be proven”. Of course, in an axiomatic system one can prove negative statements, like: “there are no positive integers (‘p’ and ‘q’) with the property that p/q precisely equals the square root of two”. But how would one prove something like “there are no pink unicorns, which can sing”?

In any case, some positive propositions can be proven, like “Morality is objective” which is the topic at hand.

I’ll try to give you the idea again on how morality is objectively founded. First of all, **moral goodness is largely based on ontological goodness **(though they are different). This is because how one should act depends on what one is and what the thing is toward which the action is aimed.

So far, perfect!

This involves then finding out what human nature/essence is. This is because ontological goodness is determined by how much it fulfills our human nature (i.e. makes a more human, perfects us as humans), rather than what makes us less human (e.g. makes us more like irrational animals).

This is where the cracks start. Just read what I said above, some humans prefer freedom with less security, others prefer more security and less freedom. There is no universal human nature. If there would be, the whole problem would be easier, though it would not disappear.

Another trouble is the existence of “scarcity”. When I have enough food, it is obvious that it is good to share it. It will not hurt me, and it would help others. Clearcut decision. But what should one do if he already lacks food? Share that little he has? This is the well-known lifeboat dilemma, which has no solution. If I keep the food, he will starve. If I give all the food, I will starve. If I share the food, we both starve. No solution to the question: “how should I behave?”.

 

[James_S_Saint]

btw. racism was invented by the Brits

Haha… geeeez