Imagine my surprise when I heard that atheism was based on a search for truth. We all know that’s false.
Let’s examine a couple recent examples.
Patrick claimed that I did not provide any links.
You’ll note the complete absence of any links…
I provided links. Patrick lied.
KN claimed that Immanuel Kant was an atheist philosopher.
KN lied,
Patrick demands morals of others while denying that there are any objective moral obligations.
Why do atheists care about what is true and what is immoral?
Why do atheists attack the object of their ignorance?
William J. Murray,
I’m well aware of the difference. I’m not being entirely facetious.
Well, then properly understanding and interpreting morality via conscience and reason includes using terms that can clarify. When I use the term “love”, I’m referring to something distinct from desire or attraction, more like agape.
William J. Murray,
How is it ‘self-evidently true’ that love for mankind (exclusive of atheists, obviously) is a moral good? It’s not definitionally true. Its denial does not create any contradiction. You’ve just introspected it, I presume. Which does not mean you are sensing an objective external basis for it, merely that you approve the sentiment (in principle).
A little on topic Monday morning quiz.
Who said this?:
Hint: this person has been mentioned here.
Warning: turn off your irony meter.
Allan Miller asks:
I said “love”, not “love for mankind”. Not sure what you mean by asking me “how” something is self-evidently true. The self-evident aspect of a true statement comes from one recognizing that it is true upon understanding the statement alone, without any further explanation.
I think that is in a way true. As Sellars puts it:
That is, there is something to the idea that agape is built into the framework of practical reasoning. It is “self-evident” in the sense that anyone who has acquired a framework of practical reasoning at all will regard this principle as constitutive of that framework.
Nevertheless, the fact is that there are alternative conceptual frameworks of practical reasoning, as there of theoretical reasoning. (Would a Viking warrior agree that “cruelty is bad”?) Is the “self-evidence” of agape really constitutive of morality as such? Or is it constitutive only of the morality specific to Christianity and the cultures it has influenced? (“Slave morality”, in Nietzsche’s memorable phrase.)
It is well-known that competing scientific theories have incompatible constitutive principles, all of which appear “self-evident” to a competent user of that theory. (Compare how mass, space, and time are defined in Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. To the Newtonian, it is “self-evident” that space and time are absolute.)
I worry that there is something analogous in the case of moralities: different moral frameworks (not theories, but rather the whole framework of ethical practices, judgments, and feelings) rely on different constitutive principles, all of which are “self-evident” from within the perspective afforded by that framework.
In the case of scientific theories, there are more or less agreed-upon criteria for adjudicating conflicts. General relativity yields predictions that cohere better with experimental and observational data than the predictions generated by Newtonian mechanics. We can therefore say that general relativity is a more precise model of space-time than Newtonian mechanics was. We can even reconstruct Newtonian mechanics as a special case of general relativity, even though doing so means rejecting the constitutive principles of Newtonian mechanics.
I am not at all sure that there’s anything analogous in the case of moralities. I harbor a deep worry that something like ethical relativism might be true. I don’t want it to be, but I don’t have an argument strong enough to defeat the Nietzschean skeptical challenge.
William J. Murray,
That is my interpretation of ‘agape’. Assuming you didn’t mean someone standing with their mouth open. If not mankind, in a general sense, then what?
I don’t recognise its truth (that ‘love’ is self-evidently a moral good), and therefore, it isn’t self-evident. You are just giving your opinions unwarrated weight.
I think it is ‘good’ to have a general disposition of goodwill towards sentient beings. I approve. But that is not something I would puff up as a ‘self-evident truth’.
Luckily for you.
A classic mistake. Your entire life experience up to that point is the context for any such statement. What would be self-evident to someone brought up without language or culture?
William J. Murray,
Self evident = widely agreed upon.
Self evident truths are gateway tard to properly basic beliefs.
Rich:
Just say no to tard.
William,
Your entire shtick consists of:
1) Taking your subjective morality,
2) Slapping the label ‘objective’ on it, and
3) Sneering at the benighted folks whose morality is merely subjective.
Besides the mouth-breathers at UD, who is going to buy that?
For some being a big fish in a small pond is enough.
First, remember I said “more like agape. From Wiki:
Allan continues:
That you don’t recognize it as true is irrelevant to its self-evident nature. You can also not recognize “I exist” or “A=A” as self-evident truths; that doesn’t change their status as self-evident truths.
I think you’re probably not understanding what a self-evident truth is. It’s not a claim of fact; it’s a philosophical concept at the root of establishing models of justfiable knowledge by recognizing certain core axiomatic statements from which one builds and develops further knowledge and by which meaningful debate on that subject can occur. Without a ruler, so to speak, one cannot make meaningful measurements. Without a basis to vet knowledge, meaningful knowledge cannot be accrued.
Without a shared axiomatic glossary acknowledged as valid, honest argument is not possible. (Which is, incidentally, why I don’t respond to KN. I would be responding to KN’s statements according to what his statements mean in my foundationalist/justificationalism philosophical frame of reference. I would not be responding to what he means from his frame of reference because, frankly, I have no idea what his statements mean from his perspective. He’s also made it clear that he considers such assumptions on my part to be a form of “oppressive normative violence” on my part, and I think I’m safe in assuming that such interaction is unwanted on KN’s part – again, I don’t know how to interpret what KN says due to his rejection of my philosophical framework. So, I’m thinking the most moral course of action is to not attack him with my oppressive, violent assumptions by responding the only way I know how. And none of this is meant as sarcasm nor meant to be condescending.)
All your non-recognition of the statement does is make any discussion or debate about what is good and what is wrong between us highly problematic, and it doesn’t matter at all to the objective vs subjective morality debate.
So, long story short: if you don’t agree that love is good and cruelty is wrong, we have no basis by which to argue further about what is and is not morally good or morally wrong, because those are, IMO, fundamental aspects of any meaningful morality.
William,
If all you are doing is making a logical argument for objective morality, why do you include the logical argument as evidence for objective morality when asked for evidence?
William @ UD
You go on in that thread making plenty of arguments like:
Someone claims something does not exist, why do you care if you are only making a logical argument?
There is a difference between flavours we prefer and the building blocks of our consciousness that have to be learnt over many years that imbue us with the social gestalt. I guess William’s multi-year purely logical argument for objective morality never considered that.
ROFL.
William J. Murray,
I can see that negation of ‘I exist’ and A=A are self-contradictory, and so can be accepted without further examination. That is not the status of your now-too-woolly-to-have-much-meaning ‘love’, vis a vis any moral imperative.
Yadda yadda yadda. I know what a self-evident truth is. ‘Love is a moral good’ is not one.
I already said I approve of ‘love’ (I preferred the term ‘goodwill’). I also disapprove of cruelty. But these are personal reactions. Yours and mine. And those of others, when we check. You are trying to turn these (probably part learnt, part innate, certainly quite common in the species) into something that necessarily exists outside of the world of human minds. You have much more work to do there, than simply declare their ‘truth’ to be self-evident.
IMO you are reifying a broad consensus, a shared ‘feeling’, then trying to frame the debate in such a way that only your reification works.
OMagain,
Because logical arguments can be used as evidence in favor of a proposition that something exists.
Nice quote-mining. Full quote:
What seems to be forgotten is that we learn much of our morality (some component is likely innate in our social species as well).
We learn what is ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘naughty’ and ‘nice’ round about the time we learn the correct usage of those very words. We learn to align with our peers and parents on matters of approval and disapproval – not as automata, but with a predisposition to absorb. It wasn’t ‘self-evident’ to us once. But sophisticated reasoning retroactively insists it was there all along.
Allan said;
That doesn’t change the fact that some people either deny or don’t recognize their validity. Whether or not you personally recognize a self-evident truth as such has no bearing on its nature.
Then we have nothing more to debate on this subject.
No, let’s have the whole thing:
Note that last arrogant line. I know better then you what you are thinking. That essentially sums up your whole argument.
Who is asserting such a proposition regarding objective morality in the discussion linked to?
I noted a flaw in your argument and your response is to point out an alleged quote mine. Good dodge, I’ll remember that one when my morals become more like your objective ones.
If you are only making a logical argument, why does it matter?
William J. Murray,
Your statement was [eta, appeared] declarative on the specific subject of my recognition. But there is, in any case, a means by which their status can be ascertained. That is not the case for your other attempted axioms. A sullen ‘doesn’t mean they aren’t’ doesn’t really cut it.
I presume this is not you agreeing that morality is subjective …
It’s quite clear. Graham2 asks WJM for evidence for objective morality.
William responds with the above ‘evidence for’ quote.
When you are asked for evidence it is in relation to something that exists. Not something that there is a logical argument for. You never think to mention that to Graham2 hence it was not what was going on. Sure, you throw in the word ‘logical’ often enough you can do what you are doing now, but when you look at it objectively (ha) I think it’s clear what’s going on.
Presumably the various camps would have to settle their differences somehow? Can you suggest a way?
Allan said:
No, Allan. A=A is not valid because otherwise it would be self-contradictory; it is what establishes self-contradiction as a means of discarding erroneous assertions. A=A is the axiomatic concept in the form of a statement which establishes self-contradiction as an indication of non-validity.
It is what makes “I do not exist” a self-negating statement. “Selfness” = “existence”, and thusly to say otherwise is discardable as erroneous. Also, “Selfness” and “existence” are just as “wooly” concepts as “love”; that doesn’t make the statement “I exist” any less recognizable as a self-evident truth.
A=A expresses the necessity that a thing be that thing and not not that thing in order for there to be any rational comprehension of anything. Things may in fact both be themselves and not be themselves at the same time, but that would make meaningful comprehension of anything impossible.
Whether or not you agree with that my statements are self-evidently true, unless we can agree on self-evidently true moral statements that serve as verifiers of moral knowledge, then we’re back to at least a de facto subjectivist morality.
Here are the main options as I see it.
1) Morality is entirely a matter of whim.
2) Morality is a complex of senses of approval and disapproval of the behaviours of self and others arising from a combination of genetics and culture, experienced by the individual as a real (introspectively-perceived) incentive or restraint on behaviour, or remorse/satisfaction after the fact.
3) Morality is a complex of senses of approval and disapproval experienced as above but sourced from either
3a) an entity
3b) a property of the universe
… in either case, said arbiter having good knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the behaviour, possibly including subsequent facts such as remorse or reparation, and the capacity to mete out longer-term Consequences.
It is possible to reject both 1 and 3 and still be logically consistent IMO.
Why do they have to settle their differences?
Careful, you may wander into formal logic territory, and I suspect you won’t like it there…
You tell me. You appear to be the one doing so.
William J. Murray,
Framing the debate in that way makes agreement impossible. It is a misuse of language (IMO) to appropriate the term ‘self-evident’ in that way. It’s an attempt to give unmerited philosophical weight to a matter which is more of the flavour of ‘generally agreed’.
Self evident truths, if they exist, can’t require anything else to back them or ground them including deities, or they would not be self evident truths
If 2 is true, then exterminating Jews can be as morally good as hiding them from the Nazis.
If you’re good with that, I’m satisfied with this portion of the debate.
Allan said:
Only if you don’t understand what a self evident truth is.
From The Free Dictionary:
No, I’m the one willing to admit when debate is stymied by fundamental differences and move on. If we cannot agree that “Love is good” and “cruelty is wrong” are statements that can (with other such statements) ground a sound morality, then it’s time to move on. No resolving of differences necessary.
So it is not necessarily self evident or true
Actually it is the intent of cruelty that is wrong, not cruelty itself ,correct? Which symmetrically it is not selfless love that is good, it is the intending to have selfless love that is good.
Perhaps heaven is paved with bad intentions gone wrong.
My foremost qualm about WJM’s appeal to “self-evident principles” is that they are internal to a specific kind of moral evaluation — namely, one that has already been deeply informed by the historical trajectory that leads from ancient Judaism through Christianity to the Enlightenment.
As such, though they are seemingly “obvious” to those who share that moral outlook, they really can’t do much to persuade anyone who hasn’t already acquired that outlook through distinctively Western styles of moral education.
I thought love stinks.
William,
I doubt that any of us disagree that “love is good” and “cruelty is wrong” can ground a moral system. What we doubt is that such a moral system thereby becomes “objective”.
You’re simply taking your subjective morality and slapping the label “objective” on it. That’s good enough for Arrington et al, but it won’t fly at TSZ.
Then it’s a good thing I wasn’t making that argument.
I repeat:
You’re simply taking your subjective morality and slapping the label “objective” on it. That’s good enough for Arrington et al, but it won’t fly at TSZ.
Newton said:
Because a thing we do causes suffering or appears to be cruel doesn’t mean the act itself or the intention was cruel. It’s an important moral distinction.
“Symmetry” is not a meaningful moral or logical principle. Each moral statement must be examined individually, because many moral statements are general or conditional. An intention to achieve a selfless, universal love is indeed a good moral intention, as is achieving it, experiencing it and expressing it.
Whether or not it is “necessarily self-evident or true” depends on other aspects of the moral system and the logical structure of that system.
No one at TSZ will object to that (I would assume), but try telling that to the leaders of the Islamic State (or to Donald Trump).
Graham2 was asking me what I would consider evidence supporting the idea that objective morality exists. I was not asserting it factually existed (look at the OP and every post of mine up to that point). IOW, he was asking what evidence I thought existed for the proposition that morality is objective in nature. I told him.