How can it be the same?

Originally posted by knightmeister
There's nothing to say that they can't undergird an ethical theory. But it would still not be the same. The fact is that when human beings behave with compassion and honesty they do sometimes flourish (although in Gandhi and M Luther King's it killed them by putting them in the firing line). Some cultures in the past have flourished via brutality and common sense...it just is..don't ask me why..it's just self evident...'

O.K. here’s the rest:

We can say these moral facts appear to be what is virtuous in human life because it brings about fulfillment and 'flourishing' in human life . We then need to show why human flourishing is better than human suffering…

Do you know how absurd it sounds when you claim that “we need to show why…flourishing is better than…suffering”? Why on earth do you think that this is something that needs to be shown? Look, I could equally well claim of your ethical theory that you need to show that acting in accord with God’s will is better than not acting in accord with God’s will. For that matter, I could claim that you need to show that God exists (evidence please, and don’t beg any questions on the way!) and that it is not only possible but actually true that God’s will is determinative of morality.

But I’ll take your request seriously, this time. To be honest, I take it to be analytic that morality is at least in part concerned with what makes human beings better or worse off. Obviously, human suffering is, in general, the sort of thing that makes humans worse off. I’m sure that you won’t find this little syllogism persuasive. So, here’s a thought experiment:

Suppose, just hypothetically, that you found out that you and your fellow theists had been radically mistaken about the content of God’s will. Suppose, just hypothetically, God’s will had always been that we deceive others to get what we want, and coerce them with force if deception fails; that we never render aid to the helpless, or protection for the weak; that we all strive for dominion over our fellow humans. Now, if this was the case, would you still think that the content of morality is determined by God’s will?

If you would still think this, then there is no reason for us to continue this conversation, because you simply use the string of letters - ‘morality’- to refer to something completely different than I do. My hunch, however, is that you are reasonable enough to see that morality simply cannot require us to act like that. And do you know why you think this? You think this because you think (as all right-thinking people do) that morality is concerned with human well being, and acting like that is inconsistent with human well being.

Look, if I found out that, contrary to the evidence I now have at my disposal, the character traits that most reliably conduce to human flourishing are cruelty, dishonesty, niggardliness, etc., then I would at once jettison my belief that considerations of human flourishing can serve as the foundation for morality. I would do this for the same reasons you (hopefully) would not call ‘moral’ those acts that are in accord with the will of the God in the example above. Morality simply cannot require us to be like that; to be cruel, dishonest, etc.

What, if anything, do these remarks show? Well, I think they show that it is unnecessary for any ethical theory to have to prove that human flourishing is better than human suffering. They show that for us even to discuss morality there must be something in common between the contents of our respective concepts of morality. What do you think resides in the overlap of the contents of our concepts? Minimally that morality is prescriptive; it has action guiding force. But also that it is concerned with what makes us better off. And while I certainly think that some suffering may be beneficial for a person, and that some suffering attends other things that make us better off, I also think that the extent to which suffering is beneficial is precisely the extent to which is conduces to our flourishing. I bet you think this too, and so should everybody else.

…and why humans are more valid than animals. A polar bear whose environment is shrinking as a result of human flourishing (global warming) might think of us as a cancerous growth on this planet, devouring and destroying nature.We should be erradicated for the benefit of nature. By what 'fact' do you say he is wrong?

I really have no idea what you’re asking here. I think that we ought to treat animals with compassion and respect. When one cultivates compassion as a character trait, one is thereby disposed to see suffering as something that, prima facie, ought to be prevented when possible and alleviated when manifest. It is a failure of compassion to be unmoved in response to either human or animal suffering. This is certainly consistent with the phenomenology of moral experience. When people like us are confronted with an animal in pain, we do not deliberate from premises about the badness of animal suffering. Rather, we see the suffering of the animal as bad; as something we ought to do something about. When confronted with somebody who is unmoved by animal suffering, we think “how can they not empathize with that animal. How can they be so callous?”

Presumably , if everyone started getting pleasure out of seeing others suffer and flourished through being dishonest then you would then have to revise your idea of moral 'facts' and make them bend to human experience?

Well, then we would be radically different sorts of creatures, wouldn’t we? Anyway, I seriously doubt that human flourishing would be possible under circumstances such as these. Our ability to solve collective action problems (like the creation and distribution of primary goods) requires us to treat each other honestly. It is a fact about humans that they come into the world defenseless and that their powers to procure what they need to survive are limited; that they need to cooperate to survive. It is also a fact about humans (as I mentioned above) that humans need certain sorts of relationships to flourish, and I doubt that it is compatible with having these sorts of relationships that people generally treat others dishonestly. Of course, you could imagine a world where human creatures do not need others to survive, can be happy all alone, are disposed to delight in the suffering of others, etc. What does this show about morality? Nothing at all. Being moral is something that we do; morality is concerned with the well being of creatures like us.

This would not happen in the Christian world view anymore than if people started to think that gravity didn't exist they would never fall downstairs.

And this would not happen in a neo-Aristotelian world view because we start with considerations of how humans actually are.

You are much much further on than dottwell because at least you are trying to establish moral facts as actual facts but these facts are still only rooted in the human value or concept that human flourishing is morally right.

You don’t understand what dotty is arguing because you are not familiar with Wittgenstein’s theory of meaning. I’m surprised Dotty has continued talking with you this long, given that your deployment of terms like ‘fact’, ‘objective’, ‘subjective’, ‘moral’, etc. don’t follow established patterns of use.

Yes, on my view moral facts are facts about human flourishing. On your view, moral facts are facts about what God wills. I think that there are objective facts about human flourishing. You think there are objective facts about God. Others may employ different notions of human flourishing, and if they do their ethical theory will differ from mine. Others may employ different notions of God, or God’s will, and if they do their ethical theory will differ from yours.

Christian world view - 'Moral facts are moral facts and even if they did not cause human flourishing they would still be facts . They are separate from human beings and existed before any human beings were here.

Yes, so? Since when is it criterial for an ethical theory that its account of moral facts entail that they existed prior to humans? Facts about human psychology didn’t exist prior to humans, but they are nonetheless facts, and objective ones at that.

Your world view (as I understand it) - 'Moral facts are moral facts insofar as they cause human flourishing. They are connected to the value that human beings place on human pleasure/pain. This value is established as a fact because the vast majority (but not all) of humans agree with it and when they follow it they experience pleasure. We do not know why human pleasure is better (or morally more right) than human pain it just 'seems' right that this should be so, it's common sense...it just is..don't ask me why..it's just self evident...'

Sigh. That is such a horrible "reconstruction" of my position that I despair of talking to you further. Moral facts don't cause human flourishing. Moral facts supervene on facts about human flourishing. Human pleasure and pain may be morally relevant, but human pleasure is not identical with human flourishing. I am a eudaimonist, not a hedonist, and these are radically different notions. The view does not, in any way, depend for its truth or justification on agreement between people. I addressed you last error above.

Now I'm going to meet some ladies for some drinks. Hooray for secular life!

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K. here’s the rest:

[b]We can say these moral facts appear to be what is virtuous in human life because it brings about fulfillment and 'flourishing' in human life . We then need to show why human flourishing is better than human suffering…

Do you know how absurd it sounds when you claim that “we need to show why…flourishing is better than…sufferi
Now I'm going to meet some ladies for some drinks. Hooray for secular life![/b]

A quite superb demolition job - clear, concise, yet highly sophisticated. Academic philosophy is lucky to have you (of course you don't need me to tell you that).

EDIT: I'm sure you know Wittgenstein would kill you for calling his a "theory" of meaning - if he wasn't dead, and all.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K. here’s the rest:

[b]We can say these moral facts appear to be what is virtuous in human life because it brings about fulfillment and 'flourishing' in human life . We then need to show why human flourishing is better than human suffering…

Do you know how absurd it sounds when you claim that “we need to show why…flourishing is better than…sufferi ...[text shortened]...
Now I'm going to meet some ladies for some drinks. Hooray for secular life![/b]

Do you understand that I agree with you entirely about the nature of morality. As you rightly say, if humans could flourish by being dishonest and cruel then this would be no reason at all to abandon compassion and love. Instead you would abandon human flourishing as a guide to morality. I applaud this and I understand EXACTLY what you are saying. I would do the same because there is something inside me that tells me with every fibre of my living being that compassion is right and cruelty is immoral. I would guess you may feel the same , this is what we Christians call faith in love , why do you not call it the same and be honest about it? I believe you may feel this too , like many right minded people , but do you understand why you feel it? We can neither of us prove to anyone that compassion is more moral than cruelty , all we can do is refer to what appears to be self evident. The catch comes when you start wondering why it is self evident in the first place. When I was an Atheist I didn't realise it but I was unconsciously refering to moral facts as facts but without owning them as actual facts. As a Christian I still believe they are facts but I have become more consistent about it because I now know why I felt so convinced about it ...because they WERE facts afterall!! I cannot prove God's existence but I can show that the Christian world view is more consistent with the idea of morality being a self evident fact. So much of a fact that the belief is one day we will all know what these facts are and it will now longer be a matter of conjecture.

Good luck with your ladies and I hope you 'flourish' with one of them in the context of a loving relationship full of compassion , forgiveness , acceptance , honesty and love. (I've assumed that you might be single)

Originally posted by LemonJello
Try to stay on topic, Halitose. Under knightmeister's ethical theory, for all we know, 'moral facts' are determined by milk pudding (and he admits as much). Now if that's not a stupid theory undeserving of my attention, I don't know what is.

Moral facts are not determined by milk pudding or blancmange but on God's love and compassion. My analogy was meant to illustrate how love and compassion are dependent on God rather than the other way round. If God had not revealed it to us we would not know what compassion and love was , just as if the sun didn't exist we wouldn't know what light was and would probably not have eyes either. You have misused my comparison

Originally posted by knightmeister
My analogy was meant to illustrate how love and compassion are dependent on God rather than the other way round.

So God could have conceivably given hate as a virtue, instead of love?

If Jesus had commanded us to hate our neighbors, would his teaching have been equally acceptable to you? If you would reject it, then you don't really accept God's will, by virtue of it merely being God's will, as the ultimate standard, do you? Rather, you accept God's will, but only by virtue of it being in accord with that which you believe to be good, and not merely because it is God's will. For if you accepted it merely on the grounds that it was God's will, you would accept Jesus' hypothetical command to hate your neighbor.

If God has free reign to decide that anything at all is good, rather than being bound to reveal only that which is good independently of him, isn't it a great coincidence that that which he has decided to be good is that which you, and bbarr the atheist, would independently believe to be good?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Moral facts are not determined by milk pudding or blancmange

I think that, at least, is something we can all agree on.

Originally posted by dottewell
A quite superb demolition job - clear, concise, yet highly sophisticated. Academic philosophy is lucky to have you (of course you don't need me to tell you that).

EDIT: I'm sure you know Wittgenstein would kill you for calling his a "theory" of meaning - if he wasn't dead, and all.EW

Infact , I am quite glad to be demolished because in doing so bbarr has had to dissentangle moral facts from being grounded in human flourishing. He is now talking about moral facts as if they were somehow self evident , which is good. He is left to refer to what humans infact actually do but I think he does need to explain why compassion seems in such short supply sometimes in this world if it is such an 'obvious' property or fact.

I want to ask you why you use the word 'fact' or 'property' to describe. I can say that New York is a city (fact) or that apples fall to the ground (fact) but what if someone says that it is always better to be compassionate than passive? Is this a fact? Gandhi might say yes , you might feel that in his position you would prefer to live? If I suggested building a hospice for injured terrorists on the 9/11 site in order to show how forgiving and compassionate America was, I know how much disagreement there would be!! (Incidentally , this is precisely the sort of thing Jesus might advocate)
So does compassion and forgiveness now become a matter of opinion? What might happen to these facts when there is a raging debate in the papers? In this scenario humans would believe a wide variety of things and do a lot of different things , so the barrs facts based on patterns of human behaviour and psychology have gone. Better to call your morality 'common sense' or 'what seems self evident to me' because in the meantime apples would still fall to the ground , New York would still be a city and green would still be green , but what you call 'facts' would have dissappeared apart from in the world of opinions. What appears as self evident to one would seem madness to another.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Infact , I am quite glad to be demolished because in doing so bbarr has had to dissentangle moral facts from being grounded in human flourishing. He is now talking about moral facts as if they were somehow self evident , which is good. He is left to refer to what humans infact actually do but I think he does need to explain why compassion seems in such orld of opinions. What appears as self evident to one would seem madness to another.

I think moral truths are more complex and elusive than you suggest. If you suggested a hospice on the site of the Twin Towers, hopefully there would be a discussion about whether it was a good idea. (Let's not make the mistake of thinking all powerful people make morally good decisions all of the time, however... )

The fact moral issues are elusive and complicated does not mean there are not, more or less, morally better or worse ways to act in particular circumstances.

It's not "common sense" or "what seems better to me", and if you think this you have misunderstood. Have you never been convinced that your moral viewpoint was wrong? I know I have.

Clearly, we disagree about moral issues. Why does that mean that without God, there are no moral facts? (Seriously, you should consider Kant's point on this issue. If we really thought our moral reasoning was essentially just the expression of some kind of subjectivity, we wouldn't bother arguing at all.)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Infact , I am quite glad to be demolished because in doing so bbarr has had to dissentangle moral facts from being grounded in human flourishing. He is now talking about moral facts as if they were somehow self evident , which is good. He is left to refer to what humans infact actually do but I think he does need to explain why compassion seems in such ...[text shortened]... orld of opinions. What appears as self evident to one would seem madness to another.

Where did he disentangle moral facts from being grounded in human flourishing? He said they supervened on facts about human flourishing.

My only beef with his position is that I assign less weight to virtues, in the sense that, in my view, virtue is not essential for human flourishing, apart from respect to other individuals' basic human rights and nature. It could be part of it, but it is not a prerequisite. Compassion is an example.

That's why I don't think I can call myself a eudaimonist or an hedonist. Pleasure must not interfere with these basic human rights but neither should flourishing need anything else but pleasure. So I feel I am somewhere in between hedaimonists and hedonists. I used to call myself an humanist, but I'd never heard about hedaimonism before.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So God could have conceivably given hate as a virtue, instead of love?

He did!

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/faq.html

Originally posted by knightmeister
...

In short, I think his point is that every time you point out that he could abandon flourishing as
the basis for supervention, you can extend the same model by analogy to God (which is the point
of Dr. S's rhetorical question).

That is, you observe '...if humans could flourish by being dishonest and cruel then this would be
no reason at all to abandon compassion and love. Instead you would abandon human flourishing
as a guide to morality.' Similarly, if one were to state the God indicated that being dishonest and
cruel were the ways to follow Him, then I think you wouldn't be a member of that religious
tradition.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio


That is, you observe '...if humans could flourish by being dishonest and cruel then this would be
no reason at all to abandon compassion and love. Instead you would abandon human flourishing
as a guide to morality.' Similarly, if one were to state the God indicated that being dishonest and
cruel were the ways to follow Him, then I think you wouldn't be a member of that religious
tradition.

Nemesio

Is there anybody among us who can't anticipate the escape route that knightmeister is sure to attempt...

God couldn't possibly command us to be cruel because he is perfectly good

...which clearly denies his premise, which he is sure to deny.

Originally posted by Nemesio
In short, I think his point is that every time you point out that he could abandon flourishing as
the basis for supervention, you can extend the same model by analogy to God (which is the point
of Dr. S's rhetorical question).

That is, you observe '...if humans could flourish by being dishonest and cruel then this would be
no reason at all to abandon ...[text shortened]... follow Him, then I think you wouldn't be a member of that religious
tradition.

Nemesio

This is absolutely true , the question is , why would we do that? The fact that we both would do it suggests that we are appealing to an 'actual' moral fact that exists independently of any human interference so that it wouldn't matter what anyone thought or did or whatever concept was put before you, facts would still be facts, New York would still be a city no matter what anyone thought about it. Christianity states clearly that morality actually exists in the same way apples exist and if someone thought God desired them to be cruel I would state them to be clearly wrong in the same way as I would reprimand them if they thought New York not to exist.. Atheism appears not to have this facility because it can't establish morality independently from human opinion or behaviour.... , they are not the same..

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is there anybody among us who can't anticipate the escape route that knightmeister is sure to attempt...

God couldn't possibly command us to be cruel because he is perfectly good

...which clearly denies his premise, which he is sure to deny.

I didn't need an escape route because I thought this through years ago.

Originally posted by Nemesio
In short, I think his point is that every time you point out that he could abandon flourishing as
the basis for supervention, you can extend the same model by analogy to God (which is the point
of Dr. S's rhetorical question).

That is, you observe '...if humans could flourish by being dishonest and cruel then this would be
no reason at all to abandon ...[text shortened]... follow Him, then I think you wouldn't be a member of that religious
tradition.

Nemesio

In essence , what you are saying is 'we don't need God because moral facst are self evident' .....whereas what I am saying is 'If it wasn't for God they wouldn't be self evident in the first place'.

The whole point of my question is to ask...why are these facts self evident?