8 ms·

Maybe, but if an Atheist is to propose/claim an Objective "moral higher order" they do so with an acceptance of a standard just as outside of Empiricism as the

by keane 10y ago

Maybe, but if an Atheist is to propose/claim an Objective "moral higher order" they do so with an acceptance of a standard just as outside of Empiricism as the Theist's.

Artistry121 10y ago
Or they could create a testable hypothesis like "acting in this way increases the sickness of those in this world" and test if an action moves in that direction. It would be objective based on the available data. And yes - the main difference being a thiest position posits the existence of something else (that could be moral (Allah/David's God) or immoral (David's God) or amoral (Vishnu/Z eus)) as part of its model outside of empiricism beyond morality.
- icebraining 10y ago
  How was "the sickness of those in this world" chosen as something to avoid, though? You are talking about the means, but the problem are the goals.
  - redial 10y ago
    Empirically.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      How can you find a goal (not a subgoal, as in "to achieve X we must do Y", but a top goal) empirically?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - redial 10y ago
      What is a top goal? Every goal is followed by things to do to achieve it.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        A goal which isn't chosen to achieve some higher-level goal. Taking a sports analogy, you can have the goal of winning a game, so that you get nearer the goal of winning the championship. "Winning the game" is a subgoal. A top goal would be something that doesn't have an ulterior goal justifying it, you want to achieve it for itself.
        redial 10y ago
        I know what you think a "top goal" is and that somehow it is different from a "sub goal". What I'm saying is that there are only goals, they are all the same and you stop at some point only because you decided to. Why can't I try to win a game just to win it? the answer is of course I can. So at that moment has the goal changed its nature? of course not. This is the same argument as with "micro" and "macro" evolution. There are no two different evolutions, there is just evolution.
        icebraining 10y ago
        Fine; the distinction is unimportant anyway. How do you empirically chose a moral goal? You can choose to win a game just to win it. What I don't see is how you can empirically choose to win a game just to win it.
        redial 10y ago
        You do it the same way you decide between everything else, you ask a question, collect the data, and then make your decision. 'Should I win the game? every time I don't win I feel bad, but when I win I feel good. I choose to win the game. My objective is just to win the game.'
        icebraining 10y ago
        Ah, but your monologue shows that your goal of winning the game is actually evaluated relatively to another goal, of feeling good. How did you empirically get to that goal?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - Artistry121 10y ago
    Yes, you have to choose the end goal but then you can use rationality. I'm not sure how you choose a good endpoint. Maybe "life is good" and therefore "expand life". This could lead in many ways though - from fascism to reversing entropy to human experimentation. It seems most morality for all humans comes down to "what is best for my in group" and then a selectively defined endgroup. There may be an argument for objective morality being based on expanding knowledge of the universe to the point where we may discover morality? We have very little accurate data on the universe and life in the universe to draw on - maybe as we gain a more accurate and useful model of reality morals will come out of the"woodwork" like writing allowed us to begin pontification on them across generations.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      But that's the point; if the endpoint is subjective, all rules derived from it, even if you use an objective system for doing so, are necessarily subjective. maybe as we gain a more accurate and useful model of reality morals will come out of the"woodwork" like writing allowed us to begin pontification on them across generations. Maybe it has already happened and we were unable to identify it. How would we distinguish it from all the other theories of rational ethics that come up from time to time?
- keane 10y ago
  You've underestimated the reach of the Is-Ought problem. Again, we can't say "humans sometimes practice empathy therefore humans should practice empathy". You, like Sam Harris, start by ignoring the Is-Ought problem and proceed with an assumption "sickness"/pain/suffering is The Objective Negative Standard (says who?) which falls far short of approaching a refutation of Hume's observation. Here is his observation: there is a gap between Facts (that which Is--like "sickness") and Values (moral commands--that which we Ought to do) and this fundamental difference remains.
redial 10y ago
So you are agreeing that your position is unverifiable? You believe it by faith, and faith is never objective.
- keane 10y ago
  Ultimately I believe my position is as knowable as many things. But as you notice, the wider point is that anytime we believe that humans have objective value or that it is objectively wrong to, say, murder a human, we have departed from strict Empiricism (and like Sagan and Hitchens said "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"). Regardless, humans of all beliefs and backgrounds, including Atheist Secular Humanists, ignore this and make the departure whether they will admit to doing so or not. Believing and declaring that humans have value when we have no scientifically-accepted empirical evidence that humans actually do is part of the beauty of humanity.
  - redial 10y ago
    You keep saying, in many different ways, that you can prove your hypothesis that morality is objective by inserting a god into the argument, followed by asserting the relativity of your position. I don't know how you are missing that.
    - keane 10y ago
      The argument isn't to "prove...that morality is objective" or, for that matter, to prove God exists. It is just an observation that "For morality to be Objective, this is the necessary dependency: God". It's not saying much more. Even when we understand and acknowledge Hume's observation, morality may or may not be Objective, God may or may not exist. But if God does not exist, morals are not Objective. Just our inventions, along with God and we used both for our comfort/survival/thriving. And what's fascinating is that in such a world, all those times Theists (and Atheist Humanists) proclaimed that humans had value without scientifically-accepted empirical evidence they would not have been acting Immorally/Wrong.
      - 10y ago

by keane 10y ago

Maybe, but if an Atheist is to propose/claim an Objective "moral higher order" they do so with an acceptance of a standard just as outside of Empiricism as the Theist's.

Artistry121 10y ago

Or they could create a testable hypothesis like "acting in this way increases the sickness of those in this world" and test if an action moves in that direction. It would be objective based on the available data. And yes - the main difference being a thiest position posits the existence of something else (that could be moral (Allah/David's God) or immoral (David's God) or amoral (Vishnu/Z eus)) as part of its model outside of empiricism beyond morality.

icebraining 10y ago
How was "the sickness of those in this world" chosen as something to avoid, though? You are talking about the means, but the problem are the goals.
- redial 10y ago
  Empirically.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    How can you find a goal (not a subgoal, as in "to achieve X we must do Y", but a top goal) empirically?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - redial 10y ago
    What is a top goal? Every goal is followed by things to do to achieve it.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      A goal which isn't chosen to achieve some higher-level goal. Taking a sports analogy, you can have the goal of winning a game, so that you get nearer the goal of winning the championship. "Winning the game" is a subgoal. A top goal would be something that doesn't have an ulterior goal justifying it, you want to achieve it for itself.
      - redial 10y ago
        I know what you think a "top goal" is and that somehow it is different from a "sub goal". What I'm saying is that there are only goals, they are all the same and you stop at some point only because you decided to. Why can't I try to win a game just to win it? the answer is of course I can. So at that moment has the goal changed its nature? of course not. This is the same argument as with "micro" and "macro" evolution. There are no two different evolutions, there is just evolution.
        icebraining 10y ago
        Fine; the distinction is unimportant anyway. How do you empirically chose a moral goal? You can choose to win a game just to win it. What I don't see is how you can empirically choose to win a game just to win it.
        redial 10y ago
        You do it the same way you decide between everything else, you ask a question, collect the data, and then make your decision. 'Should I win the game? every time I don't win I feel bad, but when I win I feel good. I choose to win the game. My objective is just to win the game.'
        icebraining 10y ago
        Ah, but your monologue shows that your goal of winning the game is actually evaluated relatively to another goal, of feeling good. How did you empirically get to that goal?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Artistry121 10y ago
  Yes, you have to choose the end goal but then you can use rationality. I'm not sure how you choose a good endpoint. Maybe "life is good" and therefore "expand life". This could lead in many ways though - from fascism to reversing entropy to human experimentation. It seems most morality for all humans comes down to "what is best for my in group" and then a selectively defined endgroup. There may be an argument for objective morality being based on expanding knowledge of the universe to the point where we may discover morality? We have very little accurate data on the universe and life in the universe to draw on - maybe as we gain a more accurate and useful model of reality morals will come out of the"woodwork" like writing allowed us to begin pontification on them across generations.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    But that's the point; if the endpoint is subjective, all rules derived from it, even if you use an objective system for doing so, are necessarily subjective. maybe as we gain a more accurate and useful model of reality morals will come out of the"woodwork" like writing allowed us to begin pontification on them across generations. Maybe it has already happened and we were unable to identify it. How would we distinguish it from all the other theories of rational ethics that come up from time to time?
keane 10y ago
You've underestimated the reach of the Is-Ought problem. Again, we can't say "humans sometimes practice empathy therefore humans should practice empathy". You, like Sam Harris, start by ignoring the Is-Ought problem and proceed with an assumption "sickness"/pain/suffering is The Objective Negative Standard (says who?) which falls far short of approaching a refutation of Hume's observation. Here is his observation: there is a gap between Facts (that which Is--like "sickness") and Values (moral commands--that which we Ought to do) and this fundamental difference remains.

redial 10y ago

So you are agreeing that your position is unverifiable? You believe it by faith, and faith is never objective.

keane 10y ago
Ultimately I believe my position is as knowable as many things. But as you notice, the wider point is that anytime we believe that humans have objective value or that it is objectively wrong to, say, murder a human, we have departed from strict Empiricism (and like Sagan and Hitchens said "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"). Regardless, humans of all beliefs and backgrounds, including Atheist Secular Humanists, ignore this and make the departure whether they will admit to doing so or not. Believing and declaring that humans have value when we have no scientifically-accepted empirical evidence that humans actually do is part of the beauty of humanity.
- redial 10y ago
  You keep saying, in many different ways, that you can prove your hypothesis that morality is objective by inserting a god into the argument, followed by asserting the relativity of your position. I don't know how you are missing that.
  - keane 10y ago
    The argument isn't to "prove...that morality is objective" or, for that matter, to prove God exists. It is just an observation that "For morality to be Objective, this is the necessary dependency: God". It's not saying much more. Even when we understand and acknowledge Hume's observation, morality may or may not be Objective, God may or may not exist. But if God does not exist, morals are not Objective. Just our inventions, along with God and we used both for our comfort/survival/thriving. And what's fascinating is that in such a world, all those times Theists (and Atheist Humanists) proclaimed that humans had value without scientifically-accepted empirical evidence they would not have been acting Immorally/Wrong.
    - 10y ago