FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Godless Bible Study (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Godless Bible Study
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Fortunately in Christian theory God works in mysterious ways, but delights in the progression of His children.

Funny, when I read Exodus, "delight" is not exactly the vibe I get from God when he's killing the firstborn of the slaves and prisoners.

And was God itching to witness and be delighted by the progression of Job's wives and children? Guess not.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Javert:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Because unlike a lot of more subtle miracles, healing an amputee is a big deal. It'd be fairly major news.
"Jesus gave me my arm back!"

I'm sorry-- I don't see it gathering national attention.

Just like that, no.

But backed up by thorough scientific documentation (he was really an amputee, there are numerous witnesses both medical and laymen, there's photos and video, and he now currently has a normally operating arm, and perhaps even had documented the instant where it grew back) then it would garner national attention.

What, you've never read a report in the new media of spontaneous limb regeneration. You just aren't looking in the right places. Spontaneous limb regeneration is almost as common as women who give birth to alien babies and based on the headlines I see at the Grocery store that happens every other week. It hardly seems worth reporting any more unless the woman is over eighty or has oct-tuplets.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What, you've never read a report in the new media of spontaneous limb regeneration.
It'd be a bit different if even a local paper -- as opposed to a tabloid -- picked up the story. Let's face it: it wouldn't be very hard to fact-check.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
I think Rabbit was being tongue-in-cheek.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm having some trouble imagining a miracle as unequivocal as the regrowth of a limb that you might know about and yet which has been successfully kept private. Would you share the general category of this miracle with me?
That you can't imagine something happening is as good a reason as any to believe it never does.

Which doesn't touch on reality at all.

JT hit the nail on the head-- this conversation is stymied by a lack of trust.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
JT hit the nail on the head-- this conversation is stymied by a lack of trust.
Specifically, it's stymied by your lack of trust. I trust you just fine, but can't imagine a miracle equivalent to limb regrowth that could remain unremarked-upon. You, however, do not trust me enough to share with me an example.

I'm okay with that, but I wanted to make clear that the problem here is that you don't trust me, not the other way around.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Yep. That is correct. By "you," though, I really mean "just about everyone."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's a bit of a change of subject. I was talking with a friend earlier and the conversation led us to a question that I found especially interesting: Why do atheists generally try to lead good lives, and what do they personally think about their reasons (if they think about them at all)? Is it selfishness (i.e; leading a good life leads to tangible rewards, and promotes survival)?

Or do they believe they are they are following some instinctual impetus, and continue to do so because regardless of the shallow material reasons, it just feels right and so why fight it? If so, does this contradict the idea of the human tendency toward selfishness?

I guess my real question is: do atheists believe that an inherent "goodness" exists in the Universe?

I am obviously asking about each and every atheist's common belief, as there is no variation between any of them. They may be addressed altogether as a singular persona. Please avoid making comments that refer to atheists as "individuals." [/explanatory sarcasm]

Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Here's a bit of a change of subject. I was talking with a friend earlier and the conversation led us to a question that I found especially interesting: Why do atheists generally try to lead good lives, and what do they personally think about their reasons (if they think about them at all)? Is it selfishness (i.e; leading a good life leads to tangible rewards, and promotes survival)?

Or do they believe they are they are following some instinctual impetus, and continue to do so because regardless of the shallow material reasons, it just feels right and so why fight it? If so, does this contradict the idea of the human tendency toward selfishness?

I guess my real question is: do atheists believe that an inherent "goodness" exists in the Universe?

I am obviously asking about each and every atheist's common belief, as there is no variation between any of them. They may be addressed altogether as a singular persona. Please avoid making comments that refer to atheists as "individuals." [/explanatory sarcasm]

Speaking for all atheists everywhere... [Wink]

I think it's a bit of a mixture. Certainly selfish. It's apparent just from looking at the world that when people act 'good' in general that everyone receives more tangible benefits.

In the last few years, a tiny part of me spurs me to be good just to throw it in the face of people who say 'you can't be good without a god'.

Do I think that there's an inherent goodness in the universe? No. But I don't think the universe is inherently bad either. It just is. Cold and indifferent.

I think, generally speaking, there is an inherent good in most people. And that does come from our evolutionary past (or so it seems) as social animals.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
But if there is no inherent good in the universe, how can there be an inherent good in people? Is "good" just a human concept applied to an indifferent drive to survive as evolution demands?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But if there is no inherent good in the universe, how can there be an inherent good in people?
As an atheist who doesn't believe there's an inherent, objective "good" in the universe, I also don't believe that people are inherently, objectively "good."

On the other hand, I think people are generally good, and on the balance will work for the common good.

How can this be?

Because I think what we consider "good" is actually a social construct that's evolved to comprise certain commonly expected behaviors, and humans -- as social creatures -- generally share the expectation of those behaviors because it's to the benefit of our species that we do so. In some cases, individual societies may define specific behaviors as "good" which other societies do not consider "good" -- but, in general, humans in general assign a positive value to social cooperation. (In fact, we usually consider those who don't to be aberrant in some way.)

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
Resh, I think you're conflating two problems/questions that are best dealt with separately:
(a) Is morality "real" in some sense; that is, are there moral facts that are as true? and
(b) What motivates people to behave in a moral manner.

I suspect you'll get a lot of differing answers to those two questions from atheists, but here's my response:

I'm a moral realist and believe moral truths exists in roughly the same metaphysical space as logical and mathematical truths. You can read more about that sort of thing here. My husband (a Hindu atheist/pantheist) is a moral relativist, for which I gently rag on him.

As far as what motivates me to act morally? A combination of childhood programming, self-interest (both in this world and a bit in a "karma" sense), empathy for others, and the belief that, since "good" is a real moral concept, it's best to behave in a good manner, in the same way it's best to behave in a logically consistent matter, and to not violate the rules of mathematics. It's not a "best" in the sense of "in my best interest" - I get a nails-on-a-chalkboard feeling when someone says something blatantly logically inconsistent, a "that's not right!" feeling, and have the same sort of reaction when it comes to moral truths.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Jhai, what if any objections do you have to relativism in the forms described by Javert and Tom?

Just curious.

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
But if there is no inherent good in the universe, how can there be an inherent good in people? Is "good" just a human concept applied to an indifferent drive to survive as evolution demands?

Because we're talking about two different things.

There's no good or bad in the universe itself. But in biological beings who have, for the most part, determined amongst themselves what 'good' and 'bad' means, there is a general trend to be 'good' as defined by themselves.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think there is any reason that atheism necessarily contradicts the idea of an inherent "goodness" in the universe. There are many explanations of how things can be inherently good or bad that do not need to invoke God.

I think the reason that atheism is perceived to be in conflict with the ideas of morality and goodness is because some stereotypical atheists tend to take a very extreme scientific-materialist approach to the universe. That is to say, in order to justify atheism, some argue along the lines that we should only believe in things that are objectively measurable, in the sense that science could study it to define it in an exact, impartial way. If you actually do approach the world in that manner, then I'd think that logically morality and "goodness" don't make sense - because goodness is not something that can be studied in an exact, impartial, scientific way.

But there is nothing about atheism that requires one to take such a viewpoint - and I suspect the majority of atheists do not fit such a stereotype. (Edit: Moral realists are one example.)

In addition to all that, even for the minority who do fall under that stereotype, I think most people (atheists and theists) tend to do what they feel is right, regardless of what their stated beliefs logically imply. For good or for bad, personal character tends to trump logical deduction when it comes to everyday actions. Or, in other words, if you were raised to feel that cursing is wrong, you probably won't often curse, even if you can't really logically deduce any reason not to. People often tend to do the right thing because they feel it is right, even if they aren't entirely sure why. (This is possibly even more relevant for religious folks, who in many cases have claimed to accept religious authorities telling them to act one way, but then instead act a different way in real life.)

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
I'm a moral realist and believe moral truths exists in roughly the same metaphysical space as logical and mathematical truths. You can read more about that sort of thing here. My husband (a Hindu atheist/pantheist) is a moral relativist, for which I gently rag on him.

I'm in between classes so I don't have time to read the link right now but just a quick question. Aren't logical and mathematical truths just a result of the way we have defined operators?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
The question can just as well be applied to those who believe that moral truths exist. Suppose it is really written in the stars and the mountains that "Thou shalt not kill", that this is just as true as "2+2=4". Fine. Why do you follow that law?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Jhai, what if any objections do you have to relativism in the forms described by Javert and Tom?

Just curious.

I don't think Javert's explained his position deeply enough for me to be able to evaluate it, but from what he's currently stated (universe indifferent, inherent good in most people via evolution), I suspect its either incoherent or we're defining terms differently. Most likely the second one.

I think Tom is making an argument for moral relativism, but I'm not certain from what he's stated. Tom, do you believe that moral judgments ("Doing X is wrong") lack truth-value altogether, or lack objective truth-value, but are true when considered in relation to a particular individual, society, or species (humans)? If it's the first, I'd need to inquire as to some of Tom's metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. If it's the second - which is a classic version of moral relativism - then I think with probing his beliefs would be shown to be incoherent. There's a number of difficulties of moral relativism (nicely shown here), and I've never seen an argument for it that is coherent.

quote:
I'm in between classes so I don't have time to read the link right now but just a quick question. Aren't logical and mathematical truths just a result of the way we have defined operators?
The quick and dirty answer to this question is that, having defined the operators as we have, there's no way that 2 plus 2 cannot equal 4. If you have a true and complete understanding of the meaning of 2, the meaning of "to sum", the meaning of "equal", and the meaning of 4, you cannot help but know that 2+2=4. Similarly, if you truly understand:
If A then B
A
then you can't help but conclude "Therefore, B".
And yes, you could use different words, or define things differently, but in the end, if you have an understanding of these concepts, you know these facts. It's not always easy to have an understanding of these concepts - I've tutored plenty of calculus student - but once you do understand them, it's quite clear that they must be true.

These type of ideas are often talked about as things that "a brain in space" could know. They're along the same lines as Descartes' "I think, therefore I exist" conclusion. You just know. Of course, someone might say that they just don't know these basic mathematical and logical facts. If someone says that, then I just count them as varelse and try to avoid discussing anything with them. Luckily, I haven't run into many people like that.

KoM, I agree that the "why be good" question is a very difficult one to answer, even if you believe in moral truths.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
Just to be clear (if I can be), my idea of morality isn't necessarily relative. More situational.

If that helps.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
I guess I might as well lay out the basics of what I think. I think that moral judgments lack truth value and would rather view actions as rational or irrational. I think rationality is subjective in the sense that it depends on what utility function you use in making judgments but objective in the sense that there is only one correct evaluation of an action given a certain utility function. An action can either be rational, irrational, or have no utility but which one it is is not open to debate provided that everyone shares the same premises. I don't see any way to derive a utility function as a "brain in space" but I think the common morals that most humans share are explained by evolution (both biological and cultural). Ultimately, I think humanity will converge to the optimum utility function for our nature regardless of whether or not there is absolute morality.

I might have misused some terminology but I hope my intent is clear. Most of my knowledge comes from internet reading but I'm now taking a course on discrete structures and one on free will so I am starting to get some "real" exposure. I'm willing to expand on any of the claims I made above (I know that they're pretty general).

Jhai, I think I understand what you're saying about logical and mathematical truths. I have to think about it more but no objections come to mind after reading what you wrote.

Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Jhai,
Thanks. That's an excellent link. I'm going to read through it and some of the related sections more thoroughly when I get home, but I definitely have some thinking to do now.

Threads,
How do you apply your thinking to actual moral statements? For example, how does "punching babies for fun is wrong" lack truth value?

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rollainm:
Threads,
How do you apply your thinking to actual moral statements? For example, how does "punching babies for fun is wrong" lack truth value?

As far as I can tell the statement is a category error. Before we can start discussing whether something is right or wrong, we should have a pretty good idea of what it actually means for something to be right or wrong or if the property even makes sense. I'm not sure that we can make either of these claims. As KoM pointed out, it's not clear that declaring something to be right or wrong is at all meaningful. Furthermore, it's not clear to me that the property even makes sense. An appeal to intuition or common belief is completely unconvincing and probably question begging since we would have the exact same moral intuitions regardless of whether or not there is objective morality.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
So then do you personally avoid the terminology all together, or do you make a mental substitution when making such statements?

edit: Trying to find the best way to phrase my question.

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tom, do you believe that moral judgments ("Doing X is wrong") lack truth-value altogether, or lack objective truth-value, but are true when considered in relation to a particular individual, society, or species (humans)? If it's the first, I'd need to inquire as to some of Tom's metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. If it's the second - which is a classic version of moral relativism - then I think with probing his beliefs would be shown to be incoherent.
I think it's possible, given a specific definition of "bad," to come up with a handful of objective "goods." But not too many; the more you add, the more you're leaning towards metaphysics instead of anything useful.

I think the vast majority of commonly-used judgments ("Doing X is wrong") are in fact mostly relativistic in nature, but I think there are a few that can be based pretty soundly on a couple of necessary first principles. Expanding the list beyond that set gets tricky, though.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
I hadn't actually thought about it but I must just avoid the terminology because I can't remember the last time I ever said something like "that was evil." Even when I believed in subjective morality (which was basically up until I came to college two months ago) I always found statements like "that man was evil" or "stealing is wrong" to be vacuous.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
Threads, it seems to me that what you're saying is that the moral statements (such as "stealing is wrong") lack truth-value. That means that they basically don't contain any meaning in and of themselves - although they might tell you something about the speaker. When someone says that "X is wrong" they aren't actually saying anything other than "I believe that people shouldn't do X" or "X icky" or something along those lines.

This belief is pretty much the basic definition of non-cognivism. (When in doubt about a philosophical concept, topic, or school of thought, always go with the SEP.)

Congratulations, you have a moral epistemological category!

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reshpeckobiggle
Member
Member # 8947

 - posted      Profile for Reshpeckobiggle   Email Reshpeckobiggle         Edit/Delete Post 
What an awesome conversation. I'm glad I decided to pop back in.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tatiana
Member
Member # 6776

 - posted      Profile for Tatiana   Email Tatiana         Edit/Delete Post 
Godless bible study is great, isn't it? [Smile]
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
An appeal to intuition or common belief is completely unconvincing and probably question begging since we would have the exact same moral intuitions regardless of whether or not there is objective morality.
Why do you think this?
quote:
I guess I might as well lay out the basics of what I think. I think that moral judgments lack truth value and would rather view actions as rational or irrational. I think rationality is subjective in the sense that it depends on what utility function you use in making judgments but objective in the sense that there is only one correct evaluation of an action given a certain utility function.
Okay, but are you willing to act accordingly? If I steal something from you, and you can't get it back, are you going to accept that I was right to do it if stealing from you was consistent with my personal moral utility function?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Okay, but are you willing to act accordingly? If I steal something from you, and you can't get it back, are you going to accept that I was right to do it if stealing from you was consistent with my personal moral utility function?
You're assuming he believes "stealing from me" has truth value. Rather, I think, he has reasons for believing you should not have stolen from him.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
An appeal to intuition or common belief is completely unconvincing and probably question begging since we would have the exact same moral intuitions regardless of whether or not there is objective morality.
Why do you think this?
Some of our basic moral intuitions are almost necessary results of evolution given the way our bodies operate. For example, murderous personalities would have been devastating to our species in the way past because our survival rates were low and reproduction was very slow. Similarly, robbery was counterproductive since survival was a community effort. Lone people were extremely vulnerable to predators. We hardly even made it as it is. I think the total human population on earth once dropped below 1000 or 10000 (I forget which).


quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
I guess I might as well lay out the basics of what I think. I think that moral judgments lack truth value and would rather view actions as rational or irrational. I think rationality is subjective in the sense that it depends on what utility function you use in making judgments but objective in the sense that there is only one correct evaluation of an action given a certain utility function.
Okay, but are you willing to act accordingly? If I steal something from you, and you can't get it back, are you going to accept that I was right to do it if stealing from you was consistent with my personal moral utility function?
I don't believe that actions are right or wrong so I would not accept that you were right. I might call your action rational depending on what your goals in life were but I doubt it. The gain from robbery is generally too small to justify risking jail time and a criminal record. Maybe that wouldn't be a deterrent for you, but I'm not too worried about that since it clearly is a deterrent for most people.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
So, following the reasoning of that position it wouldn't be wrong to steal from you, and it wouldn't be wrong for a terrorist to blow up a building, and it wouldn't be wouldn't be wrong for a world leader to commit genocide? And in addition, under that position, all of these things could be rational if one could get away with them without suffering any deterrent? Is that at all accurate?

If so, here's my problem:

I think logic is like a scale - it forces you to choose between accepting a conclusion (C) or rejecting a set of premises (P) from which C follows. So we have to weigh accepting C against rejecting P to see which of the two seems more plausible. If C is weightier in our mind and we conclude C must be false, then we are forced to reject P. If P is weightier in our mind and we conclude P must be true, then we are forced to accept C.

In this case, the conclusion (C) that you are suggesting involves the idea that actions that seem plainly and obviously wrong to me (and countless others) are actually not wrong - and might even be rational. This is so far against what people normally observe to be true, that it greatly weighs down the scale against C. There'd have to be some pretty powerful evidence (P) proving C in order to tip the scales of logic in favor of us accepting C.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Threads,
I think Tres is somewhat missing your point, but at the same time I think you're running into problems by rejecting "right" and "wrong" as useful terms. At the very least it makes justifying your reasoning a bit awkward.

Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In this case, the conclusion (C) that you are suggesting involves the idea that actions that seem plainly and obviously wrong to me (and countless others) are actually not wrong - and might even be rational.
Threads seems to be pretty clear that "wrong" is an artificial construct. Something can be rational independant of whether or not any given individual or group considers it to be "wrong."

Many criminals are acting rationally when they commit their crimes. Some of them believe what they are doing is wrong, other's don't. What keeps crime from becoming the norm is that pervasive criminal activity is not evolutionarily advantagous, from a perspective of biological evolution or cultural evolution (which I believe are closely linked).

People are generally good because the behaviors that we identify as good are, in general, beneficial. If some other type of behavior were beneficial, we'd probably be calling that good instead.

[ October 10, 2008, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps another way to put things is that fundamental rules of morality are more descriptive than prescriptive.

When we say it's right to be kind to others in our group and that we should do so, we're merely acknowleding an innate attribute of our species, even if we think we're prescribing a novel behavior.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
In this case, the conclusion (C) that you are suggesting involves the idea that actions that seem plainly and obviously wrong to me (and countless others) are actually not wrong - and might even be rational. This is so far against what people normally observe to be true...
People are often incorrect. It's very possible that things which seem plainly and obviously "wrong" to you and others are also the most rational course of action for someone to take.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
Seems to me that some of the people in this thread are - or wish to be - sensible knaves.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
It seems to me that the discussion of rationality is a bit orthogonal to morality. If you really, really dislike Jews, it is rational to <Godwin handwave>. That does not make it moral. To remove 'moral' as a category seems to put you in a rather difficult position when discussing that sort of thing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
If you really, really dislike Jews, it is rational to <Godwin handwave>.

Only if one agrees that disliking Jews is rational.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Jhai, I think anyone who claims to be anything but a sensible knave is either lying or a hermit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
*raises eyebrow*

Tom, you truly believe that people cheat, lie, steal, etc whenever they're 100% absolutely sure that they won't be caught and they will never suffer any negative consequences from their "morally wrong" deeds?

'Cause that's what Hume's sensible knave would do.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
So, following the reasoning of that position it wouldn't be wrong to steal from you, and it wouldn't be wrong for a terrorist to blow up a building, and it wouldn't be wouldn't be wrong for a world leader to commit genocide?

This is where semantics becomes important. Saying "genocide is not wrong" is like saying "poker is not blue." I'm saying that "right" and "wrong" are not properties of actions.

quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
And in addition, under that position, all of these things could be rational if one could get away with them without suffering any deterrent? Is that at all accurate?

It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Genocide could be a rational method for achieving some larger goal.

It's important to note that even if you believe in objective morality, saying that something is "rational" does not imply that it is "good" or "right."

quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Threads seems to be pretty clear that "wrong" is an artificial construct. Something can be rational independant of whether or not any given individual or group considers it to be "wrong."

Many criminals are acting rationally when they commit their crimes. Some of them believe what they are doing is wrong, other's don't. What keeps crime from becoming the norm is that pervasive criminal activity is not evolutionarily advantagous, from a perspective of biological evolution or cultural evolution (which I believe are closely linked).

People are generally good because the behaviors that we identify as good are, in general, beneficial. If some other type of behavior were beneficial, we'd probably be calling that good instead.

I think this is a good explanation.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
Jhai, I don't think that being a sensible knave at all follows from what I've said. Could you explain how it does?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
If you really, really dislike Jews, it is rational to <Godwin handwave>.

Only if one agrees that disliking Jews is rational.
The utility function was being taken as a given.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't agree that most likes or dislikes are rational. "Taking it as a given" does not make it so.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tom, you truly believe that people cheat, lie, steal, etc whenever they're 100% absolutely sure that they won't be caught and they will never suffer any negative consequences from their "morally wrong" deeds?
Absolutely. Because if they believed there were no negative consequences, they would not consider it morally wrong.

Merely by considering their actions morally wrong, they are suffering a negative consequence: admitting to themselves that they are the kind of person willing to do wrong for another gain.

I think the vast majority of people attempt to justify their actions to themselves. Even in those situations where they do believe the action is morally wrong, they still find a way to convince themselves the action is rational and is of enough benefit to be worth whatever the personal cost is to themselves to perform a wrong action.

The number of people consciously willing to engage in behavior they consider irrational and unjustified is very small. People have a tendency to overlook the consequences of their actions, or else to justify them using other criteria.

Those people who do NOT steal someone from someone when it is otherwise beneficial for them to do so, in my belief, do not because they believe that there are still other negative consequences inherent to the act itself. Perhaps they aren't confident in their assessment of the risk; perhaps they have an emotional investment in the well-being of the would-be victim; perhaps their self-image would be damaged if they knew they had harmed someone in a way they would not personally like to experience themselves. In all these cases, these are rational costs that are applied to the decision.

In other words, merely knowing one's capable of doing something "bad" is, for some people, enough of a potential negative consequence to make an otherwise beneficial theft seem not worth it.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Saying "genocide is not wrong" is like saying "poker is not blue." I'm saying that "right" and "wrong" are not properties of actions.
This is even more counterintuitive than simply saying "genocide is not wrong" though. Billions of people use the concepts of "right" and "wrong" - you are suggesting that all of those people are speaking gibberish, yet don't realize it, even while they appear to understand one another. That is a bold conclusion, to say the least.

I'm not saying such a conclusion is impossible. But on the scale of logic, what evidence exists that is so powerful that it would ever make us feel the need to accept such a conclusion?

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
I think logic is like a scale - it forces you to choose between accepting a conclusion (C) or rejecting a set of premises (P) from which C follows.

It's not an either/Or. There are the premises, the reasoning from premises to conclusion, and the conclusion itself. If the reasoning is unsound, you can reject the conclusion, while still holding the premises to be true. And if the reasoning is unsound, that doesn't preclude the conclusion from being true regardless

quote:
So we have to weigh accepting C against rejecting P to see which of the two seems more plausible.
Well, it seems really implausible to me that the planet is spinning and rotating through space. So I guess you think I am justified in rejecting the theory of gravity. My tiny fairy rubber band theory is way more plausible, according to me.

quote:
If C is weightier in our mind and we conclude C must be false, then we are forced to reject P. If P is weightier in our mind and we conclude P must be true, then we are forced to accept C.
But this "weightier" has nothing to do with logic. Lots of people think that their favorite ideas are "weightier" than all the evidence in the world. It's a basic human fact that people are prey to thinking like that.

quote:
In this case, the conclusion (C) that you are suggesting involves the idea that actions that seem plainly and obviously wrong to me (and countless others) are actually not wrong - and might even be rational.
No, I think he is desiring a concrete, objective definition of "wrong", and there really isn't one. We can define "right" for instance as being "what agrees with the Golden Rule". We cn also use the much older definition of "might makes right".

There's no objective way to distinguish which of those two is more accurate, or more correct. The question is meaningless.

And are you really arguing that, say, in the medieval world, it's not rational for a band of maurading knights to bully a town into handing over all their money to them to avoid being sacked? Sounds like rational behavior to me, and it's even 'right' under the 'might makes right' rule.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Billions of people use the concepts of "right" and "wrong" - you are suggesting that all of those people are speaking gibberish
Billions of people say "this shirt is red." Does the color red look the same to all people?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Tom, you truly believe that people cheat, lie, steal, etc whenever they're 100% absolutely sure that they won't be caught and they will never suffer any negative consequences from their "morally wrong" deeds?
Absolutely. Because if they believed there were no negative consequences, they would not consider it morally wrong.

Merely by considering their actions morally wrong, they are suffering a negative consequence: admitting to themselves that they are the kind of person willing to do wrong for another gain.

I think the vast majority of people attempt to justify their actions to themselves. Even in those situations where they do believe the action is morally wrong, they still find a way to convince themselves the action is rational and is of enough benefit to be worth whatever the personal cost is to themselves to perform a wrong action.

The number of people consciously willing to engage in behavior they consider irrational and unjustified is very small. People have a tendency to overlook the consequences of their actions, or else to justify them using other criteria.

Those people who do NOT steal someone from someone when it is otherwise beneficial for them to do so, in my belief, do not because they believe that there are still other negative consequences inherent to the act itself. Perhaps they aren't confident in their assessment of the risk; perhaps they have an emotional investment in the well-being of the would-be victim; perhaps their self-image would be damaged if they knew they had harmed someone in a way they would not personally like to experience themselves. In all these cases, these are rational costs that are applied to the decision.

In other words, merely knowing one's capable of doing something "bad" is, for some people, enough of a potential negative consequence to make an otherwise beneficial theft seem not worth it.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're misrepresenting Hume's sensible knave in this characterization. It's similar to my belief that everything everyone does is self-interested/selfish; if they didn't get something out of any particular action, they wouldn't be doing it. While that's technically correct, it washes away the value of the term "self-interested", and makes for conversations where people are typically speaking past each other.

Your characterization of the sensible knave, while also technically accurate, doesn't really speak to the fundamental idea that Hume was trying to play with through this character. Follows the letter but not the spirit and all that jazz.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2