The ethics of morality

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Our will power.

Do you describe our will power as determined? What makes our will power not determined?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The players make choices based on what is happening in the game, but they could have made other choices in the same game faced with the same situation.

Why do you think that they could act any differently than they did in that exact situation?

Intellect and will are the part of the person that is immaterial because when a person dies, so does the brain. However, the spiritual part of the soul, which includes intellect and will lives on. Maybe, as a materialist, you don’t believe in life after death.

You are correct sir, for me to accept this assertion I shall require and request evidence that the will and intellect are immaterial.

I’m suggesting that our thought process could change, and we’d form a different idea. You might have heard of Richard M. Weaver’s book Ideas Have Consequences. The idea must be proposed first in the intellect before it can have consequences, which I agree, can determine other ideas. But still, we can change our minds.

So in the exact same situation if played over again the thought process and the final result could be different? How? By “change our minds” I’m assuming you don’t mean after we’ve gained some knowledge or something, you just think that our “minds” can change without any determined (name removed by moderator)ut? Would our minds changing be random or would it be relevant to our character and who we are? If it is only partially determined what parts are undetermined?

The result of her children drowning was determined by her choice to run the car into the pond. She didn’t have to make that choice. She could have thought about the consequences and made a moral choice for good. Her mindset was irrational, as you say, but she still made an horrendous decision that she must live with the rest of her life. That decision will certainly affect many other decisions she will have to make both moral and otherwise.

Oh this event most certainly effected the woman, her family, her friends, the community, people that knew her, etc… Basically it would have more effects than could be measured, including this debate. You suggest here that she didn’t think about the consequences by inferring that she “could have”. If she didn’t, what makes you think that she could have in this exact situation? She certainly had issues as I’m sure is obvious to you so her lack of thought and her irrational actions are an example of her not thinking straight. Could she have thought straight even while notably insane at this period of time? Why do you think so?

Remember: your heart was beating at 18 days. Brain waves could be picked up at around 40 days, and you were fully formed at 8 weeks. Most women don’t even realize they’re pregnant yet.

Biologically definition of life… evidence… etc…

Psalm 139:13-16. “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my other’s womb”

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”

I don’t really give religious promotional literature any credence in matters like this.

You said it! I agree. We make decisions which determine results. I’ll just add that then we have to make further decisions that, hopefully, advance to better reults if our original decision was faulty.

Indeed, this is true with or without determinism.

Good question. Jumping from individual choices to a “historical event” or decision of govenments. Just to mention without derailing the thread: What led to the decision of the U.S. to enter Iraq, or Viet Nam, for that matter, or Korea, and would the results have been different had we not got involved? Yes, of course. But deciding whether they would have been better or worse is a question many still argue. So as mentioned above, our choices have consequences.

I agree with all you said above in bold. We have laws in place to keep individuals from harming others so society will flourish. As for an explanation about free will vs. determinism, I tried to explain above how our decisions affect (or determine) events in our lives, which, in turn, affect other decisions and events. So, I think we have similar thinking on this matter except that you believe every decision we make is not freely made. That’s like saying that fate is our destiny, in other words, you’d have to believe in fatalism and pre-destination. Would you agree with that?

I think I can agree with everything you’ve said in these two paragraphs, don’t quote me on that, I’m tired and I tend to have bad read and write performance(note the irony) when in a daze.

Overall, the question of free will vs determinism isn’t entirely clear because we cannot overlook previous events to show that they could have gone differently. We cannot tell if our decisions are determined completely or not, we can only offer philosophical concepts and obviously our axioms differ greatly, you for instance base much of your reasoning on the presence of a soul and the existence of God. Don’t take this as an insult or an attack by any means, just a demonstration of how violently different our worldviews are. Obviously our conclusions would differ greatly on just about any philosophical debate. Unfortunately however, if your argument rests on the existence of concepts like the soul, I don’t think we could ever come to a conclusion based on my lack of belief in the soul. Been fun though, thanks for the chat.

 

[4Horsemen]

I wouldn’t say that, what we perceive may be similar but by no means should we consider them the same. Our perception is based on two things. One; the thing that is being perceived and Two; our perspective.

Say the “thing that is being perceived” is a triangle. It is being perceived by everyone in Geometry 101. The teacher explains the definition of a triangle, so the students form the concept of triangularity. You add that our perception is also based on “our perspective.” Wouldn’t everyone in the class have the same perspective of what a triangle is unless someone has faulty vision and sees 4 lines instead of 3. So his/her perspective is false. In fact, everybody’s perspective MUST be that a triangle is a 3-sided figure with 3 angles.

As you may have already noticed, our perspectives are extremely different and the same is true of many others.

Our perspective is relative when it comes to ideas other than the universals like triangularity, redness, justice, pragmatism, etc. . . However, we might interpret justice differently regarding particular incidences, but the concept of justice is an abstraction. A person who is colorblind may not conceive of redness.

Do you think all concepts are ‘universals’? What do you mean when you say this?

Yes. Concepts (universals) and propositions do not exist only in the mind, subjectively, but independently of the mind, objectively.

Our perspective plays a large part in our conclusions, our own bias and axioms effect what we think is reality. So even when viewing or hearing or touching the same thing, we can conclude on violently different results.

Yes, but reality enters into it so that we can determine what is true from something false, right from wrong . . . sometimes our perspective is clouded and we have to seek truth.

I disagree, someone who acts out of fear rather than heroism and saves lives should be considered no less valiant. Our reasons and our understanding should not affect what happens and an event where a being knowingly puts themselves in danger to help others is moral.

Hey, you’re agreeing with the idea of objective order in regards to defining “heroism.” The bolded area explains it well.

My evidence and argument are based on the fact that views of good, bad and what makes something moral are completely different for many different people, the closest thing to morals that everybody agrees on are those that encourage survival and even then some people disagree that others should be awarded those same rights.

Just above this comment you defined heroism so objectively well. You mentioned saving lives in the context of what is moral, so you must see that moral precepts exist as part of reality. But sometimes it’s hard to discern what the moral choice is. Revelation kind of rubber stamps the Natural Law and helps us to define right and wrong.

That looks like a loaded and false question.

Why?

I am well aware of these things and I never suggested that scientific progression opposes religion. What I stated was that the more we know and learn the less useful and meaningful the God concept was. God’s used to be required to explain natural phenomena or to entertain the question of how the universe came to be? Now we don’t need the God concept, it has become less useful. and subsequently less meaningful.

Look at it this way. The universe is like a big puzzle that we were given to enjoy learning the laws of science and mathematics and logic. The Giver has all the answers and is also hidden in the pieces.

I accept the concept of objective reality under the assumption that my senses relay information correctly.

YES! Me too!

But whether the thing you picture in your mind or you think you see really is what you see or what you imagine or what you conclude is another matter all together.

If, ands, and buts . . . here we go again. If a tree fell in the forest and no one was there to see or hear it fall, did it really fall?

As far as I’m aware, nothing contradicts the possibility of the multiverse theory, however that doesn’t make it true, I merely presented it here philosophically.

O.K. I’ll go with that.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Say the “thing that is being perceived” is a triangle. It is being perceived by everyone in Geometry 101. The teacher explains the definition of a triangle, so the students form the concept of triangularity. You add that our perception is also based on “our perspective.” Wouldn’t everyone in the class have the same perspective of what a triangle is unless someone has faulty vision and sees 4 lines instead of 3. So his/her perspective is false. In fact, everybody’s perspective MUST be that a triangle is a 3-sided figure with 3 angles.

Yes, there are many views that are considered true and seen similarly as many others. Do you believe that everyone’s conclusions are the same or do you agree that our perspective and preconceived notions interfere with what we conclude and that our conclusions different even when looking at the exact same thing?

Our perspective is relative when it comes to ideas other than the universals like triangularity, redness, justice, pragmatism, etc. . . However, we might interpret justice differently regarding particular incidences, but the concept of justice is an abstraction. A person who is colorblind may not conceive of redness.

Many people disagree on the universals some propose.

Yes. Concepts (universals) and propositions do not exist only in the mind, subjectively, but independently of the mind, objectively.

If every human being were destroyed would this concept still exist? What if all of the information the humans collected? If life didn’t exist ever, would these concepts still exist?
4Horsemen;7917368:

Yes, but reality enters into it so that we can determine what is true from something false, right from wrong . . . sometimes our perspective is clouded and we have to seek truth.

It doesn’t matter what is real and what is not, if we are incapable to view reality without our own perspective then we could never proclaim to know what is real and what is not, we have to assume that what we perceive and conclude is correct. I’ve mentioned our assumption that the world and the universe really exists as we know it and that our senses are relaying information correctly. That is all part of our perspective and there is no reasoning or evidence that backs up this assumption, we could be a consciousness in a completely different reality with different physical laws and we could be deluded into this hallucination, or perhaps we are hooked to a machine that simulated this for us. We have to assume that our senses give us correct information to believe that this is reality.

Hey, you’re agreeing with the idea of objective order in regards to defining “heroism.” The bolded area explains it well.

The definition of hero is Dependant on bravery which is risking danger for others safety.

Just above this comment you defined heroism so objectively well. You mentioned saving lives in the context of what is moral, so you must see that moral precepts exist as part of reality. But sometimes it’s hard to discern what the moral choice is. Revelation kind of rubber stamps the Natural Law and helps us to define right and wrong.

I gave my perception of morality, nothing more.

Why?

Because it presumes a “who” designed the universe. I’ve seen no reason to give that assumption any credence.

Look at it this way. The universe is like a big puzzle that we were given to enjoy learning the laws of science and mathematics and logic. The Giver has all the answers and is also hidden in the pieces.

I doubt this conclusion.

If, ands, and buts . . . here we go again. If a tree fell in the forest and no one was there to see or hear it fall, did it really fall?

I’m merely sharing my concerns of agnosticism and how many assumptions we rely on in order to make any conclusions.

 

[4Horsemen]

Yes, there are many views that are considered true and seen similarly as many others. Do you believe that everyone’s conclusions are the same or do you agree that our perspective and preconceived notions interfere with what we conclude and that our conclusions different even when looking at the exact same thing?

When it comes to abstract ideas (what Edward Feser labels “universals”), everybody must have the same conclusion – that they exist objectively outside the mind as well as in the mind. But I do agree that our “perspective” and “preconceived notions” can interfere with a conclusion about the definition or nature of a thing. However, that just proves the individual wrong, misguided, misinformed . . . Think about the concept of numbers, like 2+2=4. That’s a truth which would exist whether or not anyone else ever existed or will exist. That’s what is meant by objective reality. Got any perspective on that?

Many people disagree on the universals some propose.

Like which ones?

If every human being were destroyed would this concept still exist? What if all of the information the humans collected? If life didn’t exist ever, would these concepts still exist?

Yes.

It doesn’t matter what is real and what is not, if we are incapable to view reality without our own perspective then we could never proclaim to know what is real and what is not, we have to assume that what we perceive and conclude is correct. I’ve mentioned our assumption that the world and the universe really exists as we know it and that our senses are relaying information correctly. That is all part of our perspective and there is no reasoning or evidence that backs up this assumption, we could be a consciousness in a completely different reality with different physical laws and we could be deluded into this hallucination, or perhaps we are hooked to a machine that simulated this for us. We have to assume that our senses give us correct information to believe that this is reality.

True that we depend on our senses to perceive the world around us and make judgments, and, of course, some (or many) or our peceptions and judgments are incorrect. Recall what I said about Plato’s allegory of the cave. The people in the cave saw only shadows and thought that what they saw was the real world, until one got outside and saw reality for what it is.

Also, from the opposite perspective, the characters in the movie The Matrix assume that reality is that they are controlling their own everyday lives, but a conspiracy was actually creating another reality.

However, that’s just a sci fi movie. We can play around and pretend that reality is different than the world that our senses and intellect define.

The definition of hero is Dependant on bravery which is risking danger for others safety.

And “bravery” is an abstract, objective concept or universal. We use our senses and intellect to discover what bravery is.

Because it presumes a “who” designed the universe. I’ve seen no reason to give that assumption any credence.

Why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen
Look at it this way. The universe is like a big puzzle that we were given to enjoy learning the laws of science and mathematics and logic. The Giver has all the answers and is also hidden in the pieces.

I doubt this conclusion.

Why? “Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be open unto you.” (Luke 11:9-12)

I’m merely sharing my concerns of agnosticism and how many assumptions we rely on in order to make any conclusions.

Are you relying on any assumptions or just believers who may be relying on assumptions. I think our reason tells us that the world was created by an Intelligent Being, a Creator, who is the unconditioned Reality not dependent or contingent on other beings. In his book New Proofs for the Existence of God, Robert Spitzer details Lonergan’s proof for God’s existence.

BTW, I had left the Church for a time and found it very difficult to return. But, thanks to God I’m back in His flock.

 

[4Horsemen]

Do you describe our will power as determined? What makes our will power not determined?

That’s the question we’ve been going round and round on. We seem to be at an impasse. Once again our will is our freedom to choose between right or wrong regarding moral issues. But one’s conscience (or “perception” as you said in your previous post) may not be formed correctly or one may be misguided, so s/he makes incorrect judgments and responses or actions. Yet, there must be some notion of wrong doing unless someone is totally insane. Then there’s the deceitful politicians who try to have it both ways when they say, “I’m opposed to abortion, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on anyone else.” (They’re lyin’ phonies).

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

When it comes to abstract ideas (what Edward Feser labels “universals”), everybody must have the same conclusion – that they exist objectively outside the mind as well as in the mind. But I do agree that our “perspective” and “preconceived notions” can interfere with a conclusion about the definition or nature of a thing. However, that just proves the individual wrong, misguided, misinformed . . . Think about the concept of numbers, like 2+2=4. That’s a truth which would exist whether or not anyone else ever existed or will exist. That’s what is meant by objective reality. Got any perspective on that?

I agree that there are some conclusions that are provably true, especially with mathematics, such conclusions are not a demonstrably true in other disciplines.

Like which ones?

Pretty much everything that is not mathematics. Mathematics has several different constructs and those constructs define the laws that will be followed. It makes the answers right or wrong and if the construct changed, the correct answer could be different.

Yes.

How so?

True that we depend on our senses to perceive the world around us and make judgments, and, of course, some (or many) or our peceptions and judgments are incorrect. Recall what I said about Plato’s allegory of the cave. The people in the cave saw only shadows and thought that what they saw was the real world, until one got outside and saw reality for what it is.

Also, from the opposite perspective, the characters in the movie The Matrix assume that reality is that they are controlling their own everyday lives, but a conspiracy was actually creating another reality.

However, that’s just a sci fi movie. We can play around and pretend that reality is different than the world that our senses and intellect define.

I was using this as a philosophical concept to demonstrate that our perception is not reliable and our conclusions are suspect at best. What is real and what is not doesn’t matter, not to us at least, it’s what we perceive and what we conclude that matters.

And “bravery” is an abstract, objective concept or universal. We use our senses and intellect to discover what bravery is.

Indeed and what some call bravery, others disagree.

Why not?

What do you mean why not? Why haven’t I seen any reason to give that assumption any credence? I don’t know, the evidence or reason doesn’t exist maybe? I’m stupid maybe? I haven’t had a good enough search for the reasons or evidence maybe? There could be hundreds of reasons but none the less, presuming a who is not something I find credible when regarding universe and “design”.

Why? “Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be open unto you.” (Luke 11:9-12)

I doubt the conclusion because I doubt the existence of this “giver” and of the Bibles relation to a “giver”.

Are you relying on any assumptions or just believers who may be relying on assumptions. I think our reason tells us that the world was created by an Intelligent Being, a Creator, who is the unconditioned Reality not dependent or contingent on other beings. In his book New Proofs for the Existence of God, Robert Spitzer details Lonergan’s proof for God’s existence.

I don’t think I’ve encountered that proof, perhaps you would like to start a new thread and we can analyze it in detail? None the less, I differ in my conclusions relating to God and the supernatural.

BTW, I had left the Church for a time and found it very difficult to return. But, thanks to God I’m back in His flock.

I would suggest you played the part you believe was played by God.

 

[4Horsemen]

I agree that there are some conclusions that are provably true, especially with mathematics, such conclusions are not a demonstrably true in other disciplines.

There are arguments for realism that author, Edward Feser, lays out that demonstrate its alternatives (nominalism and conceptualism) are errors of judgment. IOW, there are things we discover about the world rather than invent which are called “universals” as I described previously. They are the necessary truths not contingent ones. Mathematics is one example. We can say that “humanness” is an abstract idea extrapolated from knowing particular human beings. Universals exist outside time and space and outside the human mind.

Propositions like “snow is white” can be true or false, but they are distinct from the sentences which express them.

Nominalism denies that universals are real, and conceptualism insists that they exist only in the mind. Can you demonstrate a “universal” is only in one’s mind since you said it’s not “demonstrably true” in reality; therefore, it can only exist in the mind.

I was using this as a philosophical concept to demonstrate that our perception is not reliable and our conclusions are suspect at best. What is real and what is not doesn’t matter, not to us at least, it’s what we perceive and what we conclude that matters.

What we conclude about what is real makes all the difference in the world how we choose to live our lives. We seek answers, including what concerns moral issues, knowing right from wrong. What we perceive can be mistaken. That’s why philosophers and scientists try to discover the fundamental truths or universals that apply to all human beings. Most people know that murder is wrong, unless they have warped minds. The Ten Commandments made it definitive.

Indeed and what some call bravery, others disagree.

Nonetheless, the fact that there is an idea of what it means to be brave is discernable and, therefore, an abstract universal.

What do you mean why not? Why haven’t I seen any reason to give that assumption any credence? I don’t know, the evidence or reason doesn’t exist maybe? I’m stupid maybe? I haven’t had a good enough search for the reasons or evidence maybe? There could be hundreds of reasons but none the less, presuming a who is not something I find credible when regarding universe and “design”.

So would your idea of creator of the universe be the tiny particles of quantum mechanics?

I doubt the conclusion because I doubt the existence of this “giver” and of the Bibles relation to a “giver”.

Why not cosider Pascal’s Wager? You won’t have lost anything if faith in the Christian God is not true, but you would lose eternity if it is true.

Also, think about justice (another universal). It seems to be ingrained in our thinking that justice demands retribution. We know there is no perfection in this world and certainly nothing essentially just, or we’d have a perfect world. Yet, the concept of justice exists in our minds and outside. Therefore, it exists in objective reality as a truth or universal.

I don’t think I’ve encountered that proof, perhaps you would like to start a new thread and we can analyze it in detail? None the less, I differ in my conclusions relating to God and the supernatural.

When I finish the reading, . . . (ahem), when I begin reading that section (hopefully soon), I’d find a discussion of the metaphysical arguments for God’s existence (including Bernard Lonergan’s proof) intriguing.

I would suggest you played the part you believe was played by God.

I am way too inferior to play such a role.