quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The day one of you hypocritical assholes can show me an objective basis for morality or ethics is when I'll take your tarring of everyone with a broad stroke seriously, or anything you say making any kind of value assumptions .

I already have:

quote:

1) Murder causes suffering. And: 2) Suffering is something that people seek to avoid.

To which I could add what I wrote before:

quote:

1) The suffering of other human beings is largely objective. 2) No human being would will for his own suffering, and could therefore not wish for the adoption of suffering as a universal maxim.

Tell me specifically which of these you do not consider to be objectively true?

Define "suffering" and explicitly state why it should be avoided. There many layers to value assumptions. Your statements are already making value assumptions. They are not objective statements. You also gave counter examples to your own statements, making them false. You also failed to demonstrate how the desire or want to avoid suffering or pain is "rational," or any other state is "rational."

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't think "opinion" is quite the right term though. Let's say I believe (as I happen to) that my getting poked in the eye is likely to lead to suffering on my part. I don't disagree that such an assertion is entirely subjective: no-one else can make such a judgement for me, and that judgement is therefore inherently subjective in construction. (I would baulk at labelling such a judgement an "opinion" as a consequence, but that may just be semantic quibbling.) However, the second you poke me in the eye and I start crying like a little girl, my suffering is no longer subjective: it is an objective fact, apprehensible to anyone who happens to possess functioning mirror-neurons. Given the universality of the human anatomy, I can therefore project my suffering onto others and argue that - as an objective rule of thumb - poking people in the eye leads to suffering and is therefore something we should seek to avoid during the natural course of daily affairs.

I've bolded the section that I would categorize as venturing into the realm of opinion.

The statement "I believe that my getting poked in the eye is likely to lead to suffering on my part," would be one of fact -- it is a prediction that an internal state will likely result from a particular event. One could be mistaken about such a claim (although here that is doubtful), but ultimately it is either true that the internal state will result with an appropriate degree of consistency, or it is false. Moreover, the internal state presumably manifests itself objectively in the form of some biological process in the brain. Although there is, as always, some degree of subjectivity with regards to the language we use to describe it, that should not obscure the fact that we are talking about something that is a matter of physical fact.

It is also fair to infer that poking someone else in the eye is likely to lead to their suffering. Even if it turned out that this conclusion were wrong, it is (or seems here to be) drawn entirely from facts or supposed facts about human anatomy and actual experience.

That we should therefore avoid poking people in the eye, in contrast, requires us to inject some additional assumptions not similarly grounded in the physical world. The immediate assumption in this case would seem to be that we should avoid acting so as to cause suffering.

quote:

As above, I can only point to the universality of human experience. Perhaps there are some individuals who would claim to enjoy suffering: again, that would be their subjective judgement which I could have no business second-guessing. However, I would argue that such individuals are exceedingly rare and could be comfortably classified as pathologically abnormal (I don't think the word "masochist" quite captures it). To that extent, the opposing maxim - that "suffering isn't bad" - can be discounted, as no sane individual would be willing to adopt such a sentiment as a universal maxim (and, in doing so, necessarily invite suffering upon themselves).

Hmm, well there are several things here that I would object to.

It seems to me to be quite irrelevant how universally people desire to avoid suffering. Even if every single person does not enjoy suffering and would prefer to avoid it, I would not agree that this makes the proposition "suffering is bad" categorically true such that any hypothetical person disagreeing with it would be factually incorrect. In my eyes this is no different than if human beings universally preferred the color red to green; that would not make it a matter of fact that red is "better than" green.

Indeed, the very existence of human suffering suggests that it is "good," at least with regards to the survival of the individual organism and the species generally. The capacity for suffering is surely not an evolutionary coincidence. Probably "beneficial" would be the objective term... "good" still suggests a value judgment that is inherently subjective. I realize that to some degree this conflates suffering generally with a hypothetical particular incidence of suffering. The former seems undoubtedly beneficial, the latter may or may not be depending upon the circumstances.

Finally, even if I could agree that "suffering is bad," is a general matter of fact, that seems of questionable utility with regards to determining the morality of any particular action. Generally, people do not act unless they foresee some benefit as resulting from the action, and whether the benefit(s) of a particular action would outweigh the risk or certainty of a particular degree of suffering that would also result would depend on the subjective value placed on those benefits, as well as the subjective value placed on the suffering -- not only that it is "bad," but that it is "bad" to some particular degree, such that it could be weighed against some degree of "good." Unless these details are also matters of fact, we could not say that the morality of the act is a matter of fact, and even if universality sufficed to tell us that suffering is bad, it seems highly unlikely that any universality would exist with regard to all of these particulars, especially the value of "good" or at least desired internal states that might be brought about within the actor...

Just to clarify, I wasn't calling anybody in particular an asshole, just 'fundamentalists' on all sides of the spectrum that feel a necessity to impose their values or beliefs on others (during that moment, they are definitely acting like assholes even though they may be alright otherwise). The problem I have with being strictly a rationalist or using the term "rational" in that limited sense can be found in the very definition of rationalism itself:

quote:

In epistemology and in its broadest sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Moral "reasoning" simply doesn't appeal to your "intellect" in the first place. Which is why I have a big problem with rationalists of any type claiming morality or ethics is "rational" in their limited contextual understanding of the term. Morality is just as irrational in that respect as religion. Neither have any unarguable or objective means of deductively asserting or evaluating the truth value of a single "element of the subset" of religion x or value system y (of ethics or morals). Rationalism has no application in the realm of morality or anything metaphysical. The scientific method necessarily implies what is being investigated must be observable and quantifiable, with no room for any kind of subjectivity.

That's the reason why I agree with Arbiter in an intellectual sense, in the framework of rationalism, or at least dealing with pure logic. They are reduced to opinions and have no truth value.

quote:

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Everything on a fundamental level boils down to belief and perception. I don't want to get in to a pointless debate about religion or atheism here, or justifying either. I'll say this much though, I didn't believe in shit (when it comes to religion) until I started studying science, Physics in particular (ironically, once I studied formal logic in college, I became more convinced of my religious convictions). At the end of the day, everything boils down to "faith," or beliefs and assumptions. There's no escaping that. It's pointless to argue an idea, at least in the framework of rationalism as an axiomatic perspective, if there is no way to prove or disprove that claim. Your faith or lack or faith in an unprovable premise doesn't mean there isn't reason to believe in it, but either way is still subjective (given that all unproven premises in logic have equal truth value i.e. none).

I'll agree that a belief in anything not provable, via formal logic and deductive reasoning, is irrational in that context. But in the broader sense of the term, all you're really doing is being condescending or insulting someones intelligence, probably because you have minimal contact or exposure to it thus you feel it ok to be disrespectful and feel that your intolerance is "justified."

So, if you agree you're irrational for having a sense of morality or ethics, I'll agree to being irrational for having the same concept, plus a belief in God. That what I meant by hypocrisy of the rationalists.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

I'll agree that a belief in anything not provable, via formal logic and deductive reasoning, is irrational in that context. But in the broader sense of the term, all you're really doing is being condescending or insulting someones intelligence, probably because you have minimal contact or exposure to it thus you feel it ok to be disrespectful and feel that your intolerance is "justified."

well, in a world where there are no reducible truths as have you so eloquently argued, why on earth would someone like me care about insulting anyone's anything? who cares what's justified or not tolerated or how anyone is treated re anything?

if there is no truth value to anything how can you simultaneously complain about specific treatment/attitudes? seems a bit strange.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, in a world where there are no reducible truths as have you so eloquently argued, why on earth would someone like me care about insulting anyone's anything? who cares what's justified or not tolerated or how anyone is treated re anything? if there is no truth value to anything how can you simultaneously complain about specific treatment/attitudes? seems a bit strange.

I don't care what people think about a doctrine or belief system, only people insecure about their personal beliefs do (which is my theory of why fundies loose their mind if you challenge or question them). What I don't like is them indirectly insulting or disrespecting people they associate with them, as being stupid or subhuman. Respect in this sense doesn't mean you agree or admire something, by all means, you can think it's the most absurd load of horse shit in the world. I'm not talking about jokes about religion or Muhammad Cartoons or any stupid shit like that, even I find those funny (and get labeled and atheist by fundies ironically), unless it just poor humor / bad taste / shock value, doesn't matter what kind of joke it is then, I won't find it funny. All respect means is that you don't consider some one a lesser human for not sharing your beliefs, and take them as they are. That's about it really. But that's not really what I was talking about, just answering your question there.

If I was a pure rationalist, I would also discard all irrational beliefs and value assumptions to be consistent about my ideological position. That's my beef with rationalism or rationalist calling anything that cannot be deductively proven "irrational" when that is not even what the term means. Not all reasoning is inductive, plus you cannot have a basis for anything with out making some kind of assumptions. Yes, the more minimal those assumptions are, generally speaking, the more believable they are. Note I do not use the term atheist here, because not all atheists are rationalists. In order to truly be a pure rationalist, you have to be quite removed from the human experience and give up all your "irrational" ideas and pleasures (desire is inherently irrational in that respect). Rationalist call faith stupid, while they simultaneously put faith in a single modular understanding that doesn't even apply to many areas of human existence. I don't see a difference between that and thinking that "the world is 10,000 years old and evolution is lie." They are both attempting to superimpose models or doctrines where they simply have no relevance, or very limited application. That the problem with being obsessed with an ideology of any type, it breeds intolerance of anything that doesn't fit that mold, and you expect it to answer all the questions in the universe.

Like I said, it's what I see as the inherent hypocrisy in that position that bothers me, or more specifically, just being plain condescending with statements like "you have to be a complete idiot to believe in God" or phrases like "religious nutters." I'm not saying every rationalist is guilty of it, but the parallels are there between religious fundies and secular fundies. I also don't like it when people deliberately misrepresent ideas, there goes intellectual integrity as well at that point, which I hope would be important to any rationalist, in the favor of preconceived biases.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, but even if i accept that ^^ as correct, the almost nihilistic texture still rubs me the wrong way :/ why believe anything or advocate any point of view if ultimately everything is equal? and how can you have a username like that if you've just said that there can be no worthwhile arbiter? i dunno. there exists a wonderful equilibrium in the universe's state of nature, i like thinking that ideas like 'suffering is bad' is a sociologist's E=MC2

Just because I don't believe in moral facts certainly doesn't mean I don't believe in anything. It also doesn't mean that we can't engage in productive reasoning towards what actions people ought or ought not to take in a given set of circumstances, provided we can agree on some goal or set of goals from which to reason.

Suppose we assume that what I say is true, but I wish to advocate some particular course of action based on a goal I subjectively value. For example, I could pose as a goal that 'human beings should be free from needless suffering inflicted upon them by other human beings.' From that assumption, I can perhaps draw inferences about how people ought to act.

If someone disagrees with my conclusion, there are two possible avenues of attack. They can either disagree with the underlying goal, or they can attempt to attack the reasoning which relates my ideas about how people ought to act back to that goal. If they choose the former, then I cannot say they are objectively wrong -- but as a practical matter, they may have discredited themselves (certainly, from a public policy perspective it would be foolish to try to justify one's position by suggeting the aforementioned goal is not worthy of pursuit.) If they choose the latter, then the issue can be decided by logic... the outcome of which would be a matter of fact. Of course, this becomes somewhat more complicated with multiple goals that may at times compete, but you can probably get the gist of it from this example.

I'm actually inclined to think that the common belief in some objective "moral fibre" is actually a significant obstacle to productive discussion of so-called "moral issues." When one or both parties adhere to the notion of some objective morality, the discussion tends to depart from the dispute, as above, where there are really only two ways to attack a proposition (disagree with the goal or attack the reasoning.) In the place of such simplicity, we often get discussion of nonsense like divine edicts or labyrinthine rationalizations based on a myriad of abstract ideas and principles which seem to evolve as often and as much as is necessary to produce the "correct" (desired) result...

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Define "suffering" and explicitly state why it should be avoided. There many layers to value assumptions. Your statements are already making value assumptions. They are not objective statements. You also gave counter examples to your own statements, making them false. You also failed to demonstrate how the desire or want to avoid suffering or pain is "rational," or any other state is "rational."

"Man's Search for Meaning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy



$0.02.

this has been a inresting topic and its strange how if we dont belive in god we turn to science for the answers.Because the evidence is there in black and white.And if science doesnt offer us any logic then we turn to phoslophy because we as people need to understand why we do anything! and faith can often be in any way or form fitting. this goes for any of these as pointed out it all depends on how we use them.