30 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSince it is a logical truth that either there are or are not absolutely good reasons, I should hope my argument is consistent with this. But, in fact, my argument is silent on this issue. I mention good reasons, not absolutely good reasons. I'm not even sure what "absolutely" means in this context. Does it mean "decisive", "context invariant", "rationally binding"? I certainly don't think that reasons of necessity have any of those properties.
Your argument assumes that there are or are not absolutely good reasons. But whether a reason is good or not depends on an individual's opinion!
Whether one takes a reason to be a good one will depend on one's opinions about the reason. Whether a reason is actually a good one generally does not depend on one's opinion about that very reason.
30 Dec 07
2 edits
This is a very good discussion. I have learned something in Spirituality, a rather unusual phenomenon for somebody as intelligent, well-educated and championship-title-holding as myself.
Bbarr, write a book for the common man on metaethics, ethics and epistemology. Seriously. It's what you should do. I can provide good reasons upon request. Don't be epistemically defective.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI could suggest that you write the jacket liner for the book.
This is a very good discussion. I have learned something in Spirituality, a rather unusual phenomenon for somebody as intelligent, well-educated and championship-title-holding as myself.
Bbarr, write a book for the common man on metaethics, ethics and epistemology. Seriously. It's what you should do. I can provide good reasons upon request. Don't be epistemically defective.
30 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrWith societal norms you can have more than one way to looking at
Yes, there are a number of things people disagree about. Scientists can disagree about natural phenomena, logicians can disagree about the validity of a deductive proof. The fact that scientists or logicians can disagree does not entail that there is no fact of the matter about what they are disagreeing about. The beliefs of scientists don't determine what i best to determine what the moral facts are, and there is no guarantee that they will be right.
things so finding the ‘facts’ of how we ‘ought to live’ can get fuzzy. We
could look at sex for example, within todays society of live and let live
we have some conflict on what should be the ‘ought to live’ rules or
norms that society accepts, promotes, or hinders. Taking religion out
of it as I suppose any good atheist would like to do how do we define
the facts? Can we put forward anything anyone will listen too when it
comes to how one ‘ought to live’ and be taken seriously, or do you
even think one should? The facts are when we are promiscuous
broken families result, sexual transmitted diseases run through the
population, unwanted pregnancies occur do these ‘facts’ amount to
anything when placed next to the desires of pleasure people get out
of their sexual experiences? What moral facts matter and whose rules
of how to avoid the negative outcomes can anyone place upon
anyone else, with reason? I don’t think you have anyone or anything
that could with justification give another an ‘ought to live’ all you can
do is offer an opinion based upon personal taste there really isn’t
anything that binds us together to cause us to have to take seriously
anyone else’s facts on sex if we don’t like their ‘facts’ it be comes
unworkable in my opinion.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, I've read your post over at least ten times, yet I am having a hell of time trying to figure out just what it is you are worried about. Suppose that two theists, A and B, disagree about the nature of God, the content of revelation, and the manner in which the content of revelation should inform their moral deliberations. This not only frequently occurs between adherents of different faiths, but it also is endemic to Christianity. Theists, even Christian theists, "have more than one way of looking at things". When attempting to resolve moral disputes, Christian theists will often provide reasons that derive from their differing interpretations of scripture, from their differing personal experiences, from their different conceptions of terms like "justice", "mercy", "compassion", "love", etc. Now, why don't your concerns about secular ethics also apply, in exactly the same way, to theistic ethics? Presumably, you will respond that even though individual theists may disagree about the moral facts, it is ultimately still God that determines what the moral facts are. But notice what you are doing in this response! You are responding in exactly the same way that I was responding above. You want to claim that there are God-dependent moral facts, and that these facts are the facts even if different theists disagree about them. The secular ethicist makes a structurally identical claim. There are God-independent moral facts, and that these facts are the facts even if different secular folk disagree about them. You may claim that, ultimately, the ethical norms endorsed by secular folk are a matter of taste. The secular response is that it is ultimately a matter of taste just how a theist conceives of God, revelation, scripture, and the relationships between all these and morality. If you respond that there are good standards of argument or reason that should inform theistic conceptions, the secular response is that there are good standards of argument or reason that should inform moral inquiry.
With societal norms you can have more than one way to looking at
things so finding the ‘facts’ of how we ‘ought to live’ can get fuzzy. We
could look at sex for example, within todays society of live and let live
we have some conflict on what should be the ‘ought to live’ rules or
norms that society accepts, promotes, or hinders. Taking religion out
of ...[text shortened]... else’s facts on sex if we don’t like their ‘facts’ it be comes
unworkable in my opinion.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrIf there is no God you are right it boils down to opinion only and it
Kelly, I've read your post over at least ten times, yet I am having a hell of time trying to figure out just what it is you are worried about. Suppose that two theists, A and B, disagree about the nature of God, the content of revelation, and the manner in which the content of revelation should inform their moral deliberations. This not only frequently occur ...[text shortened]... hat there are good standards of argument or reason that should inform moral inquiry.
will hold true that the opinion with the most might behind it will win
out over the other for as long as that 'might makes right' stays in
play. If there is no God it does not matter if it is two theist or an
Atheist and Theist, or two or three of whatever label we place on
people. The point I'm making is you really don't have an 'ought
to' without God you only have opinions and tastes there are not
moral facts that we can hold up and say everyone must abide by
these rules due to these facts. If there isn't something that keeps
us all together and moving down the same path for the same reasons
you only have opinions, personal tastes, and might coming into play
nothing more.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt goes back to what we call a fact, do you think a fact is an opinion
The cover of bbarr's book should depict him smacking his forehead.
or a matter of personal taste? If we were to say we must move up
that can only be done if there is some knowledge of up and down.
The moral facts are revealed by what, personal tastes, opinion, you
may as well say going up is a matter of opinion too.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJaySigh. Suppose that God did not exist. Would it still be the case that you ought to believe P just in case you have good evidence for P?
If there is no God you are right it boils down to opinion only and it
will hold true that the opinion with the most might behind it will win
out over the other for as long as that 'might makes right' stays in
play. If there is no God it does not matter if it is two theist or an
Atheist and Theist, or two or three of whatever label we place on
people. T ...[text shortened]... you only have opinions, personal tastes, and might coming into play
nothing more.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion? Do you understand the difference between a proposition being believed and a proposition being true? If you understand these differences, you will understand why your last two posts are nonsensical.
It goes back to what we call a fact, do you think a fact is an opinion
or a matter of personal taste? If we were to say we must move up
that can only be done if there is some knowledge of up and down.
The moral facts are revealed by what, personal tastes, opinion, you
may as well say going up is a matter of opinion too.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrThe point is that you and I could agree on P with the evidence that
Sigh. Suppose that God did not exist. Would it still be the case that you ought to believe P just in case you have good evidence for P?
is before us, but that does make our agreement meaningful to
anyone else who disagrees with us, so are we really looking at
moral facts or opinions without a standard that everyone is held to?
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by KellyJayWould you answer the question, please?
The point is that you and I could agree on P with the evidence that
is before us, but that does make our agreement meaningful to
anyone else who disagrees with us, so are we really looking at
moral facts or opinions without a standard that everyone is held to?
Kelly
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrA fact does not depend on my views it is what it is, a moral fact
Do you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion? Do you understand the difference between a proposition being believed and a proposition being true? If you understand these differences, you will understand why your last two posts are nonsensical.
implies to me that opinions do not matter which I have yet to see
from you any reason to believe that is true.
Kelly
30 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayCatholics believe that purgatory exists and that it has certain properties. Atheists believe that purgatory does not exist.
It goes back to what we call a fact, do you think a fact is an opinion
or a matter of personal taste? If we were to say we must move up
that can only be done if there is some knowledge of up and down.
The moral facts are revealed by what, personal tastes, opinion, you
may as well say going up is a matter of opinion too.
Kelly
In light of this state of affairs, would you characterize the existence of purgatory as a matter of opinion?
I would not. Whether purgatory exists is a matter of fact. That is, all people who hold a belief about the existence of purgatory could vanish and it would still be the case that purgatory exists or does not exist, just as it did or did not while people were around to hold beliefs about it. That either the atheists or the Catholics have an incorrect belief about its existence has no bearing on whether it exists; that is, purgatory might exist even if people disagree about whether it does or how to go about determining what purgatory is like if it does.
Now, if you follow the above example, simply replace "purgatory" with "moral facts independent of any God", "Catholics" with "secular ethicists" and "Atheists" with "Christians" and what results is a demonstration that the existence of moral facts does not require that everybody agree upon them or know how to determine what they are.
By contrast, whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla is a matter of opinion rather than fact; that is, if all ice cream eaters were to vanish from the universe, the claim "Chocolate is better" would be void of propositional content in a way that "Purgatory exists" would not be were all Catholics to vanish.
30 Dec 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAre there facts when it comes to morals, following your example
Catholics believe that purgatory exists and that it has certain properties. Atheists believe that purgatory does not exist.
In light of this state of affairs, would you characterize the existence of purgatory as a matter of opinion?
I would not. Whether purgatory exists is a matter of fact. That is, all people who hold a belief about the ...[text shortened]... tent in a way that "Purgatory exists" would not be were all Catholics to vanish.
of ice cream that is all personal tastes nothing more. Bringing it
back to purgatory if there is no God does it matter what anyone
believes about purgatory if it isn't real. Morals independent of God
basically boils down to everyone doing what is right in their own
eyes to coin how the Old Testament stated it. Unless you can show
me from your perspective why your fact should matter to me I'd
say all you really have is an opinion based upon personal taste.
Kelly