31 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is frankly unbelievable that you are unable to understand this simple point. Evidence is constituted by considerations that make a proposition more likely to be true. People believe as they should when they believe in accord with the evidence they have at their disposal. What people actually will believe is dependent on what they take their evidence to be, and this may be a matter of opinion. S will believe P, generally speaking, if S is of the opinion that his evidence sufficiently supports P. S may be wrong about whether his evidence sufficiently supports P, in which case his belief that P will be irrational. That is, S fails to believe as he should when he is of the opinion that his evidence sufficiently supports P when in fact the evidence fails to sufficiently support P.
[b] One believes as one should when one believes in accord with one's evidence.
Evidence is something each individual evaluates himself. Therefore, "should" in this sentence is dependent on the individual's opinion of the meaning of the evidence.[/b]
That you cannot seem to get your head around the difference between the propositions "P is evidence for Q" and "S is of the opinion that P is evidence for Q" fills me with despair for humanity. Propositions of the first sort determine what we actually should believe. Propositions of the second sort explain what we will actually end up believing. Ideally, facts about evidence and facts about what we take our evidence to be should be in harmony. Ideally, S should take P to be evidence for Q just in case P is actually evidence for Q.
31 Dec 07
Originally posted by bbarrDo you believe that two people looking at the same thing, see it the
I wasn't defining "irrational", I was explicating it. You'll know when I'm defining a term because I will attempt to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of that term. To be irrational in an instance is to fail to believe as one should. To fail to believe as one should is to fail to believe in accord with the evidence at one's disposal. If you have a counterexample to this explication, present it.
same way always?
Kelly
31 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe concern is when we go up against a higher authority, if there isn’t
The concern is when we go up against a higher authority, if there isn’t
a higher authority than ourselves, it than becomes whose in power at
the moment. Why would it matter to me if an atheist deliberates on
what they like and dislike, should it matter to me what a polytheist
thinks when they deliberate, or even other theist? If they do not touch
my li ...[text shortened]... the case? You have a 'should be' set of morals that bind the whole
human race in mind?
Kelly
a higher authority than ourselves, it than becomes whose in power at
the moment.
I think what you are trying to say here is that without recourse to a higher legislating authority (God), the atheist is committed to the idea that moral claims are made true or false depending on what the most powerful human faction of the moment thinks. That's so ridiculous, KJ. In this very thread, many examples have already been given of secular ethical theories that posit an objective basis for morals. These theories, which are of course perfectly consistent with atheism, entail just the opposite of what you are suggesting: they entail that the truth of moral claims don't depend on what any subjects, let alone the most powerful factions of humans, think. I think you would do well to familiarize yourself with some of these secular accounts. You may of course disagree with them, but at least your studies should convince you that atheists are not thereby committed to subjectivist, or otherwise anti-realist, accounts.
If the scope of a moral law or moral fact does not bind the
entire human race up in its ‘moral rightness’ is it really a moral fact?
If facts are not subject to human opinion, than culture, time and
human preferences shouldn’t come into play.
Again, I beseech you to familiarize yourself with secular theories. You'll find accounts that "bind" all rational agents. That would include, as examples, the human race, races of intelligent aliens if they exist, and earthworms if the worms were to develop certain capacities. Plus, the accounts would also speak to the treatment of beings that, while lacking in capacities for moral agency, are nevertheless moral patients. The accounts cut across cultural, taxonomic and temporal boundaries and entail that moral truths are not subject to mere human, or any observer, opinion. Pretty good, huh?
The whole human race
is either under the same sets of moral facts or not, do you think that
is the case?
Isn't that just logically necessary -- that, basically, either there are or are not objective (or at least human-perspective-independent) moral facts?
You have a 'should be' set of morals that bind the whole
human race in mind?
I don't think my thoughts on morality really have anything to do, particularly, with the property of being human. They would extend to all moral agents and patients, irrespective of the question of species membership. What I mean is that I might refer to certain species to make a related point because from experience we know that certain species tend to have certain capacities; but I don't think membership in a certain species, in itself, has really any relevance in these matters.
31 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloNow wait a minute! There are a couple of things going on here lets not
[b]The concern is when we go up against a higher authority, if there isn’t
a higher authority than ourselves, it than becomes whose in power at
the moment.
I think what you are trying to say here is that without recourse to a higher legislating authority (God), the atheist is committed to the idea that moral claims are made true or false dependin membership in a certain species, in itself, has really any relevance in these matters.[/b]
confuse the two, or think that I’m denying one because I reject the
other. With respect to what an Atheist thinks about what is true or
not, unless you can show me that all Atheist agree I’d say you are
running into the point that it is those in the most influential position
or scope, or those that have the most power that matter when it
comes to views on what is important or what is a fact. The one thing I
try not to do is limit human experiences or faults to just one group or
another, the Theist have the same issues as the Atheist do, bottom
line we are all just people. Being a Theist does not mean my views
about anything are more important than the next guy if he is another
Theist or an Atheist.
The first being is there a moral fact?
The second who can tell me what that is that I should believe them?
The first could be true while the 2nd is still is not answered! I can
acknowledge there is a moral fact that does not mean I am going to
agree with someone else’s view on what is a moral fact, or even
demand that they accept my views about that either. As it has been
agreed to earlier we can have two different people look at the same
thing and see different things, so when we weight what is and is not
important, does it stand to reason that we can also come into conflict
as what is or is not more important as well? If you agree we can
disagree about what is important can be in dispute, how we agree or
judge what is important enough to establish a base line on how we
should be looking at things?
It was brought up that I need to read secular books to glean what is a
moral fact, and that to me is like having a Mormon tell me need to
read the Book of Mormon or one of their other scriptures to
understand the truth about morals. I am not opposed to reading any
book that you ask me too, I’m currently reading one another poster
suggested, “What is this thing called Science” to get a better
understanding of some of the points he brought up. If you have a
link or a book to suggest feel free to suggest it, when I get a chance
I’ll read it.
We may be disagreeing on life and what is important from the on set
if you want to take ‘moral facts’ that all life needs to be viewed as
equal. If you want me to think of an ant or tic as important as a
human life, that isn’t going to happen. I recall reading about a doctor
who thought all life was equally important so he did not bother with
sterilizing his operating tools since the so called bad germs had as
much right to life as we did or the so called good germs. If you are
claiming that in some situations we can view all life equally for X sake
whatever X is will have to be defined quite clearly. Again I’m not
denying there are moral facts or that there are moral facts that bind
us all, but the how and why that is true will cause some things to be
true and others not so much. Which brings back my statement about
higher powers if those powers are human or a deity that sets the
standards of importance what becomes a ‘moral fact’ it can change
with the source of who sets the standards of what is imporant.
Kelly
31 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrDo you define a 'moral fact' as in the correct course of action?
I don't understand what you are asking. Could you rephrase the question?
If so how do you define what is and is not more important when it
comes to making a choice of one thing/action over another?
Kelly
01 Jan 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAmong the set of moral facts are facts about what one ought to do. There are also moral facts about what character traits one should develop, what one should value, what sort of life one should live, and so on. When I choose to act I do so on the basis of the reasons to which I have access. I'm sure it is the same in your case. If you are asking me more than this, I don't know what it is.
Do you define a 'moral fact' as in the correct course of action?
If so how do you define what is and is not more important when it
comes to making a choice of one thing/action over another?
Kelly
01 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI'm trying to draw out of you how you judge this! I recall a story told in
Among the set of moral facts are facts about what one ought to do. There are also moral facts about what character traits one should develop, what one should value, what sort of life one should live, and so on. When I choose to act I do so on the basis of the reasons to which I have access. I'm sure it is the same in your case. If you are asking me more than this, I don't know what it is.
a book I read by Dallas Willard about a pilot that was doing high
speed maneuvers in a jet, at some point the pilot decided to go up,
but instead flew strait into the ground because they didn’t realize they
were flying upside down at the moment. There must be something
that gives us these moral facts, if it is dependent upon how I view
morals, or how you view morals are we not talking about moral
opinions and not moral facts? If we are flying in different directions
without some plum line that gives us a point of reference on which
way is up or left or right, my point of view and yours could be and will
be as unique as we are. That in my opinion does away with facts and
replaces it with opinion, at least that is how I see it.
Kelly
01 Jan 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI judge what my reasons are by thinking carefully about the case at hand, the same way everybody else does. The moral considerations that inform my thinking are, generally, virtue-ethical. In tough cases I try to think through what the compassionate, honest, generous, just, etc. thing to do in the case at hand would be. Of course, in easy cases no such deliberation goes on explicitly. In easy cases I simply see what it is I ought to do (and, again, you do the same).
I'm trying to draw out of you how you judge this! I recall a story told in
a book I read by Dallas Willard about a pilot that was doing high
speed maneuvers in a jet, at some point the pilot decided to go up,
but instead flew strait into the ground because they didn’t realize they
were flying upside down at the moment. There must be something
that give ...[text shortened]... inion does away with facts and
replaces it with opinion, at least that is how I see it.
Kelly
01 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI am in agreement with you, but what about those that have a
I judge what my reasons are by thinking carefully about the case at hand, the same way everybody else does. The moral considerations that inform my thinking are, generally, virtue-ethical. In tough cases I try to think through what the compassionate, honest, generous, just, etc. thing to do in the case at hand would be. Of course, in easy cases no such deli ...[text shortened]... explicitly. In easy cases I simply see what it is I ought to do (and, again, you do the same).
different core set of beliefs/values, where their compassion is
saved for those of like mind or color? If we were to suggest a moral
fact those others may not agree with you and I on what and where
we 'should' place our honest responces, compassion, and so
on. That does not even address the gray areas where things like
I brought up earlier come into play, such as topics like sex, where
even we could come to disagree. Moral facts if they are to be
facts shouldn't depend upon human opinions, otherwise, are we not
reduced again to moral opinions? Wouldn't a moral fact have to
rise above such things as human opinion? I mean if I can change
a moral fact by what my core values are, it isn't really a fact as much
as an opinion is it? If it is trully a fact doesn't that mean it goes
beyond human opinion?
Taking this a little father into the discussion if we are right and I do
believe we are, there are moral facts! Who gets to say what they are
and is there anyone of us that has the moral authority to say this
is the way walk ye in it?
Kelly
01 Jan 08
Bbarr, I don't want to harass you, but I want to a) understand where you're coming from and b) help you understand any mistakes you made, or to understand my own.
I have not yet succeeded.
Would you address my proton example? Is "implicit" used differently in philosophy and science? I don't understand...
01 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWith respect to what an Atheist thinks about what is true or
Now wait a minute! There are a couple of things going on here lets not
confuse the two, or think that I’m denying one because I reject the
other. With respect to what an Atheist thinks about what is true or
not, unless you can show me that all Atheist agree I’d say you are
running into the point that it is those in the most influential position
or sco ...[text shortened]... moral fact’ it can change
with the source of who sets the standards of what is imporant.
Kelly
not, unless you can show me that all Atheist agree I’d say you are
running into the point that it is those in the most influential position
or scope, or those that have the most power that matter when it
comes to views on what is important or what is a fact.
Gee, Kelly, just look at you theists! You guys just can't agree on much of anything! Don't you know how many substantially different formulations of voluntarism are out there?! Oh sure, you all think morality has something to do with God's will, but there is certainly not complete agreement on just how that works. Who are you theists going to believe, KJ? I'd say that you're running into a real problem where the ideas of influential theologians and those in power in your church hierarchies are given too much priority. And gee, above that I'd saying you're running into a real meta-problem where the most powerful person (God) is given more or less sole normative priority.
See I can bring those charges too, not that there's much merit to them. People are going to believe in accordance with what they take as evidence. That goes for theists and atheists. Yes, the ideas of the "most influential" people exert significant influence on others (Isn't that just sort of tautological?). But hopefully, people are basing their subsequent belief on the actual merits of the influential person's argument. And hopefully, people do not take a person's "power" to be the determining factor of the soundness of that person's arguments. But if people are being hopelessly irresponsible in their belief-building, what do you want me to do about it?
If you agree we can
disagree about what is important can be in dispute, how we agree or
judge what is important enough to establish a base line on how we
should be looking at things?
Yeah, people will disagree. So we should try to offer reasons for and against views and converge on the right answers. And hopefully people will be responsive to the actual evidence at their disposal. I think a study of anthropologic climates throughout history will show that we have made good progress in many areas.
It was brought up that I need to read secular books to glean what is a
moral fact,
I was just suggesting that you read such works to dissolve your general ignorance of secular ethical theories. And I think it will convince you that atheists are not committed to some of the stuff you seem to think they are committed to.
We may be disagreeing on life and what is important from the on set
if you want to take ‘moral facts’ that all life needs to be viewed as
equal. If you want me to think of an ant or tic as important as a
human life, that isn’t going to happen.
Let's not muddy the waters. I never even said that biological life, in itself, is morally relevant at all. And I certainly did not say that all forms of life are "equal". All I said was that my views don't assign moral considerability merely on the basis of species membership.
01 Jan 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloI do not think "moral facts" have anything to do with being either
[b]With respect to what an Atheist thinks about what is true or
not, unless you can show me that all Atheist agree I’d say you are
running into the point that it is those in the most influential position
or scope, or those that have the most power that matter when it
comes to views on what is important or what is a fact.
Gee, Kelly, just look a ...[text shortened]... on't assign moral considerability merely on the basis of species membership.[/b]
an Atheist or a Theist, it is either true without human agreement or
it is a human opinion, not a moral fact. If you think I’m pushing
being a Theist is better than being an Atheist in this discussion I
suggest you read what I have written again. My contention is with
the words facts and opinions, and they are not limited to either
Atheist or Theist, it is a human query.
In the light of evolution I'm not sure what we use to judge moral
facts as being good or bad, is a good moral fact something that
pushes evolutionary progress along causing the more adaptable
to move on while doing away with those those are not so viable
least they hinder that which would move up the evolutionary
ladder, or is it something that hinders it, keeping the weak around
and so on? This again goes back to what is important, what do
we use as a measure of morality, is there an authority or does
there have to even being one? If evolution isn’t what people think
it is, does that change how we view morality too?
With respect to other life forms I more than likely misread you,
I’m sorry.
Kelly