Critique of Sam Harris's Moral Landscape: Can Science Tell us What we Ought to do?

....The ideological tendencies of scientism seek to scrap traditional philosophically based ethics and produce a whole new ethical system based upon a scientific understanding of human biology. We might call this “biologically based ethics,” or “scientific naturalism,” the official name for the school is “ethical naturalism.”[1] “Bio-ethics” implies the genuine ethical issues that emerge from biologically based intrusion of humanity into the natural processes of living; cloning, artificial insemination and the like. What I call “Ethical naturalism” is an attempt to actually replace the philosophical discipline of ethics with one derived from science.[2] Of course the major issue is that science has no mission to determine how we should live. Ethics is primarily about understanding how we should live, how we treat others, how we decide what actions to take in given situations. These are not scientific questions they are philosophical questions. In their attempt to wipe out all other forms of knowledge the scientism movement seeks to eradicate philosophy wherever it finds it. In this chapter I will argue that applying science to ethics is the fallacy of trying to derive an “ought” form “is.” I also argue that the diversity of ethical theory is not a weakness but strength and one that disproves the wisdom of this urge to reduce ethics to science.

....James Rachels made a famous defense of ethical naturalism in which he expressed the idea that ethics not based upon scientific fact is an oddity:

Ethical naturalism is the idea that ethics can be understood in terms of natural science. One way of making this more specific is to say that moral properties (such as goodness and rightness) are identical with natural properties, that is properties that figure into scientific descriptions or explanations of things. Ethical naturalists also hold that justified moral beliefs are beliefs justified by a particular kind of causal process. Thus C.D. Broad observed that ‘if naturalism be true, ethics is not an autonomous science, it’s a department or an application of one or more of the natural or historical sciences.’ [3]

 One of the major exampels of ethical naturalism is Sam Harris atheist guru, in his book the Moral Landscape.

Harris:

            The Subtitle to Sam Harris’s book,  Moral Landscape is “how can science determine human values?” So it’s not going to just inform us of our values but “determine” them. Presumably regardless of what we do value, the priests of knowledge, those lucky enough to go to big name universities and major in genetics will determine what we want in the future. Harris begins by observing that he’s talked with thousands of people, most of them well educated, who believe that human values are not based upon truth content, and misery and that well being and misery are so poorly defined we can’t know what they mean.[4] He warns that he’s not trying to give a scientific account of what people do in the name of morality. Nor is he suggesting that science can help us get what we want out of life. “Rather I am arguing that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want –and therefore, what other people should do and should want in order to live the best lives possible. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, such answers may one day fall within reach of maturing science of the mind.” [5] So apparelty it’s not just a matter of understanding what human beings value and want, but of teaching them what they should value and want? Who is to decide this? Science can tell us what’s right then it can make it right in our minds through control so that what we want is what science tells us to want. But of course this is “helping” we who are too feeble to help ourselves, we who are stuck in the religious thinking. He just told us science can’t help us get what we want then he tells us that it will. How can this be? Because he wants to use science to change what we want to what he wants us to want. But of course he masks this in terms of what we should want. Then what does it mean that he includes telling others what they should want? Then falling within reach of the science of the mind? That’s not a hint about control? He wants science to reach beyond the mere ability to explain the physical workings of the world and to become the orbiter of values. Of course that means arbitration of values would be controlled by scientists.

            He goes on treading on the toes of ethicists. He says, “Once we see that a concern for well being (defined as deeply and inclusively as possible) is the only intelligible basis for morality and values, we will see that there must be a science of morality.”[6] In light of this quotation is apparent that Harris’s ethics are basically teleological. He’s clearly a consequentialist if not a utilitarian.[7] In other words, it is the end result that makes an action moral, not duty or obligation to act, but how the action turns out. The extent to which it conforms to the desired goal is what makes it moral. The way he works it out is that science will tell us which of the problems is more devastating and which hurts more people that will tell us how to spend our resources. “…would it be better to spend our next billion dollars eradicating racism or malaria?”[8] So he’s already working from an implicit value system that’s based upon an ethical philosophy which has already put in place well being as the end toward which ethical thinking must strive, and the underlying value behind ethical theory, to the exclusion of deontology (duty and obligation) and all other theories. He does this before he has the scientific means to determine the value system. So this is really a shell game. He’s going to give us the means to determine what’s best for us but we have to determine it within a framework he’s already picked out that excludes alternatives. Not that we all wouldn’t agree that we should do “what’s best” but the issue is how we know what’s best. He’s already decided the supreme issue is the outcome in terms of physical comfort and avoidance of physical pain. He doesn’t recognize that this a value that he’s put in place as a philosophical underpinning, so we don’t get a answer to weather or not we embrace that as a value.

            He deals with the issue of the subjective nature of ethics, which is the basis of relativism. He distinguishes between subjective/objective in two senses, practice and principle. He’s opposed to ideals of good, such as Platnoic forms. He’s only speaking in terms of a diminished naturalistic sort of good that comes as a side effect of the way we do things. That’s good in terms of our value system, he assumes we all value outcome as a moral goal. His distinction between experience (practice) and ideal (principle) allows him to say that we can do things better without trying to establish the moral good, but then that’s supposed to give us a moral good.[9] When he brings religious views into it he thinks that ideas of heaven and hell prove that religious views are really based upon pleasure and pain too. They are not really concerned with the good for its own sake but with avoiding hell. [10] In this manner he seems to be attempting to reduce all value systems to his own. One of the major problems with his handling of value systems is the basis for adopting one. It’s obviously simplistic and self serving to just assume everyone is about the same value system I want. It’s also delusion to assume that there are not hidden subtexts in one’s value system.  One of the major problems in determining a value system is in assuming that the “ought” or “one should” aspect of a valuation of actions can be determined by factually ascertaining the nature of things. We see this assumption in Harris’s statement about science as coming to understand what’s going on in the universe. What do we mean by “going on?” There are multiple aspects to what’s going on, how we determine which of those is crucial? What if we decide that what’s going on is going on spiritually? We are not supposed to think that because that’s not what science tells us. Science isn’t going to tell us what’s “going on” in any but a materliasitc framework. So the reductionist view has so truncated reality that it dictates the disappearance of a whole aspect of reality embraced by the vast majority of people to suit the ideological framework put in place by a tiny elite who want us to accept their values as facts. This is the bias we set in place just by reducing the field of ethics to scientific proof.

            There is another troubling aspect to Harris’s take on science and ethics. Brain Earp, Research Associate, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics tells us that Harris tries to subsume ethics under the banner of science.[11] We can see that in the wording of Harris’s argument. In saying that science is about finding “what’s going on the universe” that pretty much subsumes everything that isn’t excluded form existence. Earp talks about a lecture that Harris gave at Oxford, hosted by Richard Dawkins, called ““Who says science has nothing to say about morality?” When prompted by Dawkins interview that he was going up against questions with which moral philosophers had grappled for centuries Harris said: “Well, I actually think that the frontier between science and philosophy actually doesn’t exist… Philosophy is the womb of the sciences. The moment something becomes experimentally tractable, then the sciences bud off from philosophy. And every science has philosophy built into it. So there is no partition in my mind.”[12] If there is no ground between philosophy and science then he’s subsuming ethics under the banner of science and there need be no difficulty. The problem is he’s not content to just allow philosophy to continue doing it’s thing, he wants to take over its ground but then impose his reduction and re-label everything and replace real moral philosophy with ideology (see the C.D. Board quote above). He takes out moral reasoning and replaces it with reduction to numbers. Imposes a surreptitious value system in the guise of “facts,” and replaces duty and obligation with teleological thinking. This view is supposed to carry the assurance of being factual proof of what’s “going on in the universe” yet this just transgresses one of the basic concepts of modern thought. This is a problem sometimes referred to as “Hume’s Fork”[13] but more commonly called ‘the is-ought problem.’

The Is-Ought-Dichotomy

            The “is-ought” problem tells us that we can’t derive what should be just from a description of what is. If we look at what Harris is saying, he’s really not doing that although he wants us to think he is. He thinks it’s possible to do this just by being real accurate with the “is.” But he’s already reduced reality so it wont include transcendent ought. So he’s already hedged his bets against the argument. In reality there is no reason why we should accept that the “ought” is already in place and that it’s already a given that pleasant physical circumstances as outcome are the only valid good available. This has not been established by anything. It’s just an assertion that is put in the position to be a default given that alternatives are ruled out ideologically. There’s nothing about biological facts that establish an “ought.” We might show that religious belief has harmed more people than Polio (perhaps) but if true that still would not tell us why it’s wrong to do so. Harris’s basic answer to this argument is that people who make such criticisms have too narrow a concept of science. “Science simply represents our best effort to understand what’s going on in the universe, and the boundary between it and the rest of rational thought cannot always be drawn.”[14]  That is his answer to the issue of is-ought, basically no answer at all. What difference does it make if it is out best efforts (which I doubt)? Best efforts don’t change is to ought. What difference does it make if we broaden our scope of understanding for science? What he’s really saying is that science is the only true ethics. In saying that, he’s clearing the way to replace real ethical thinking with the reductionist ideology that makes up his understanding of science. All the scientific precision there is can’t turn “is” into “ought”—there is simply no reason why facts by themselves represent what should be. As Philosopher Robert Nozick tells us:

Ethical truths find no place within the contemporary scientific picture of the world. No such truths are established in any scientific theory or tested by any scientific procedure—michrascopes and telescopes reveal no ethical facts. In the guise of a complete picture of the world, science seems to leave no room for any ethical facts. What kind of facts are these, what makes them hold true?[15]

Brain Earp, again tells us:

Example. It’s a fact that rape occurs in nature — among chimpanzees, for instance; and there are some evolutionary arguments to explain its existence in humans and non-humans alike. But this fact tells us exactly nothing about whether it’s OK to rape people. This is because “natural” doesn’t entail “right” (just as “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean wrong) — indeed, the correct answer is that it’s not OK, and this is a judgment we make at the interface of moral philosophy and common sense: it’s not an output of science.

The domain of science is to describe nature, and then to explain its descriptions in terms of deeper patterns or laws. Science cannot tell us how to live. It cannot tell us right and wrong. If a system of thought claims to be doing those things, it cannot be science. If a scientist tells you she has some statements about how you ought to behave, they cannot be scientific statements, and the lab-coat is no longer speaking as a scientist. Questions about “How should we live?” — for better or worse — fall outside the purview of “objective” science. We have to sort them out, messily, by ourselves.[16]

If the current state of affairs (what is) is the basis of what should be than political repression and backward understanding of the environment and focus on short term needs only, as well as greed and even cruelty must be what should be. That certainly sums up what is as far as life on earth goes.

            Rachels defends ethical naturalism against the “is-ought” argument and his defense is a bit more involved than Harris’s. He argues that evaluative conclusions can sometimes be drawn from factual premises. His example is if the only difference between doing  A and not doing A is a child will suffer intense prolonged pain, then it’s better not to do A.[17] Wait, this in principle no different than Harris’s answer and it’s based upon the same “trick.” I use the term advisedly because they may not intend to trick, but they are tricking themselves because there is a clearly a value that’s being inserted into the process that is kept unspoken and asserted as though the it’s the only valid conclusion that comes form the nature of the case but it’s clearly loaded at the front before the example is made. The idea that doing is wrong because all other things being equal it would result in the pain of a child assume form the outset that our values are such that paining children is wrong. This is fraught with a host of assumptions: that there is a right and wrong, that children are more innocent than adults, that it’s wrong to harm the innocent, that’s more wrong to harm the innocent than the not so innocent, and so on. Yes, these are values with which we all agree. There is, however, no evidence that they are arrived at logically as a result of some magic transmutation of “is” into “ought.” Rather the “ought” is assumed form the beginning, it is loaded into the example, otherwise why use a child? The basis of those values is ot proved by this example to be logically derived from the nature of the case but could well be derived from fine feelings or a sense of right intuited from the Spirit or any number of things. It’s use as an emotional ploy suggests the flaw in using it, because it suggests a value already built in. He also argues that beliefs are tied to motivations, those stem from behavior and that is based upon “is,” upon the factual nature of the human psyche and other situations that are derived from the nature of the case.[18] Yes it is undeniable that an evocation of ethical duty or obligation must revolve around actual facts rather than mere abstracts or there is no actual ethical concern. That in no way means that the “ought” is derived form the mere facts of the nature of the case apart form the value systems employed to evaluate them.

            Value systems make up the basis of ethical thinking. Intrinsic value is what supplies the reason for action in ethics.[19] Ethics is about what we do, how we live, as a result of examining our actions in relation to our values. We all agree that pleasant outcome; absence of pain is a good thing.[20] Yet we believe for different reasons. The reductionists try to justify it as an outgrowth of survival instinct, the Christian as an expression of God’s love. It matters which way we do it because the decision is ultimately the expression of a value system, that decision will determine how we decide our actions. If we write off human values as merely the opinions of a different set of mammals, if we say “o well marmoset actions are marmoset ethics,” that’s all it is just the way a different set of organisms spins the survival mode, then we might wind up justifying a whole set of dehumanizing actions. If we are led down the garden path by the priests of knowledge and taught to think of these dehumanizing actions as merely a means to an end, we may lose the human values that would enable us to regret such actions. Behind what might seem like split hairs lurk the justifications and rationalizations for destructive and dehumanizing decisions. One could see, for example, rationalizing loss of freedom by an appeal to concrete nature of the outcome and there fleeting transitory nature of the “merely human” value of freedom. The space between is and “ought” must be kept in order not to sanctify what “is.” The danger is too great that deriving “ought” from “is” will produce a way of thinking about “is” that forever links it with “ought.”

           

---

Sources

  [1]James Rachels, “Naturalism” pdf, http://www.jamesrachels.org/naturalism.pdf  accessed 5/27/13. Originally published in Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, Hugh Lafollette, ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000, 74-91, 2.
  [2]Ibid. 2
  [3]Ibid.
  [4]Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values.” New York: Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 2010, 28.
  [5]Ibid. 28 (emphasis his).
  [6]Ibid 28
  [7]One difference in being a utilitarian as opposed to a general consequendtilsit would be that the utilitarian. would be that the utilitarian has the dictum of “greatest good for the greatest number.” Whereas a consequentialist who is not a utilitarian my try to forgo that idea.
  [8]Ibid., 28
  [9]Ibid., 30
  [10]Ibid., 33
  [11]Brain Earp, “Sam Harris is Wrong About Science and Morality,” Practical Ethics, ethics in the news, blog, University of Oxford, Nov. 17, 2011. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-wrong-about-science-and-morality/  accessed 5/21/2013
The Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics  is at Oxford it’s a major think tank that deals with modern concerns of ethics and science.
 [12] Ibid.
 [13]“Hume’s fork” really refers to several things that all fall under the general category of “synthetic and a pripori.” The is-ought dichotomy falls under this rue brick in the sense that it’s a juxtaposition of a practical empirical sate of affairs “the is” vs a an ideal transcendent concept (the ought). The “is/ought” problem originally appears Hume’s  Treatise on Human Nature, book III, part I, section 1.
  [14]Harris, Ibid., 29.
  [15]Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, Mass.: Bellknap Press, Harvard University Press, 1981, 399.
  [16]Earp, Ibid.
  [17]Rachels, Ibid., 4.
  [18]Ibid., 6.

  [19]Robin Attfield, Value, Obligation and Meta-Ethics, Amsterdam, Atlanta, Georgia: Editions Rodopi  B.V. Value Inquiry Book Series,1995, 29

  [20]Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, Mass.: Bellknap Press, Harvard University Press, 1981, 399.

Ethical Discussion With Atheists on CARM

20 Nov 2010
CARM

TOPIC:

the warrant, the thing that makes it so. what puts the force in "ought?"

Unknown atheist.

I am not sure what you mean by this. I am going to assume you mean that there are moral facts which exist in nature, and they are the basis of morality? Well if these moral facts exist, then maybe they are the basis for morality. But to my knowledge the only evidence we have for them is some peoples intuitions, which I do not trust.

Meta:

Look, any time you use the term "ought" (that is what ethics is, it's how to show why something OUGHT to be done or not done) you are saying "this is what SHOULD BE."

ought = should be!

the thing that spells out a should be is a warrant. as in the phrase. "do you have a warrant?" Warrant in law means you are authorized to do something liek search a premises for something. Warrant in logic means you are authorized to draw a conclsuon from your data to your conclusion. That field that allows you to draw that conclusion si alogical piont that gives permition to think someting, in other words a good reason.

that's why I call the warrant the thing that makes it so(see above in blue). because it tells us why something should be. in so doing it sort of metaphorically gives us permission to believe that X should be.

UA:

Why is it a bad thing that our moral values reflect how we personally believe the world ought to be?

Meta:

It's not. That is not give us license to do whatever seems good at the moment. There's a broader context than just individual feeling.

UA:

How does God choose his moral values, if not by his own personal fancy?

Love, God's charactor as love forms the basis of all ethical judgement. The basic grounding that makes right and wrong is the relation of an action to the motivatoin in love.

Meta:

"fancy" implies either arbitrary or some from of trivial personal reference. God is not trivial, god is not just another guy. God is not a human being, he's not a big man in the sky. He's not just another guy with another opinion. God is the basis of all good by virtue of the fact that he is the source of all love (love in the sense of will to the good of the other).

Who else would be the authority and the judge but the all knowing creator? you are all knowing? you have your personal feelings. so do I? what if your personal feelings trample on my right? how does that make you more right than me just becuase you want something and I have it? There has to be arbitrating voice there that is not and is not me that says "this is not fair for you to kill this guy and take his things just because you have a personal feeling that you want them."

God's base of motivation is his character as the ground of being nad the source of love. Love is the background of the moral universe. That phrase means (rooted in St. Augustine btw) that love is the basic motivation behind all ethical stands and universals.

UA:

Does what either of us want have any bearing on reality?

Meta:

On the way we perceive it.



Originally Posted by HRG

"Grounding axioms" is a sufficiently vague expression, which enables its user to claim that his moral axioms are grounded, while those of his opponents aren't. In fact, what could you ground an axiom on, except another axiom ?

Meta:
It would be if you were dealing with some sap who didn't study under Frederich Carney.

On the other hand you are not willing to even try to ground axioms meaning you are left with no moral philosophy and nothing but your alleged dry wit and no means of translating your value system into action.

I on the other hand have a cogent and well developed moral philosophy and I can certainly show where I ground my axioms.

HRG:

See what I mean about a vague term, made even more vague by adding "adequately" ?

Meta:

I see so adjectives make things more veg. there's a unique take on English.[HRG is From Austria you see.]

HRG:

Could we please hear some more details about this alleged grounding process ?

Meta:

How do you warrant an argument? grounding and moral axiom is nothing more than warranting a proposition. Warrant is the connecting link between the data and the conclusion.

You say math is objective. What makes it objective? what's the different between an actually objective proposition and a less subjective one? To say you have a less subjective proposition you have to compare it to something. Less subjective than what? speaking of "objective" is veg (ironically since objectivity is supposed to make things so transparent).

Mathematical assumptions are just as random and veg as any other. Why should we work in base 10 and not base 2? or base 8? It's all the same if you know how to work it right? The process is still one of logic and it's no different then words, it's just that the certainty in math comes at an earlier point, you choose which base and then you are stuck with a set of rules. The rules warrant the proposition, because they tell you which proposition to apply. But there is still an arbitrary point, it's just further up the line so to speak. no?

Warrant, connecting link, that's all basically epistemology. I think it was Simplelife who was speaking in this thread of separating ethics form epistemology? I agree with him, that is the beginner of the big mistake in western thought.

My epistemology is based upon epistemic judgment. I say we can't have absolute knowledge of reality so we must make a judgment at some point. The extent to which a proposition is warranted, or an axiom is grounded is the extent to which we choose a set of early on, and the more basic the level the more extensive the grounding.

Go back to the TS argument again. That argent connects everything to God becuase it shows the basis of all propositions, all ought, all should, all rules, all organizing becasue essence of the organizing principle. Base the axioms on the TS.

How to do that is the big problem. But go back to Fletcher there's a given at the most fundamental level, that's where I can connected being to love. I've talked about that link before. that unities the organizing principle (ordering principle) with the value system.

voila, axioms are grounded.

that doesn't mean there aren't problems to work out. there always are. That's what makes philosophy fun, otherwise logic would be bean counting.

Now the discussion turns to a guy called "Lance." I think his views really demonstrate what's wrong with humanity in this era. The blue text is what he's dealing with that I said in a previous post.

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
the warrant, the thing that makes it so. what puts the force in "ought?"

Look, any time you use the term "ought" (that is what ethics is, it's how to show why something OUGHT to be done or not done) you are saying "this is what SHOULD BE."

ought = should be!

the thing that spells out a should be is a warrant. as in the phrase. "do you have a warrant?" Wararnt in law means you are authroized to do something liek search a premises for something. Warrant in logic means you are authorized to draw a conclsuon from your data to your conclusion. That field that allows you to draw that conclusion si alogical piont that gives permition to think someting, in other words a good reason.

that's why I call the warrant the thing that makes it so(see abvoe in blue). because it tells us why soemthin should be. in so doing it sort of metaphorically gives us persmission to believe that X should be.


Lance:

I believe you are describing what I call a moral fact, here let me define it for you.
Just like a fact is something in reality which makes a descriptive statement true, a moral fact is something in reality which makes a prescriptive statement true.

termenology--whatever

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
It's not. That is not give us license to do whatever seems good at the moment. There's a broader context than just individual feeling.

Lance:

I understand that the legalistic terminology you were using before was just a metaphor to describe things which make prescriptive statements true; I think that you are over extending the metaphor now with talk of license. Why don’t we break away from metaphors and speak in clear and precise terms?

Meta:

All language is metaphor. However I am speaking planing. Person desire does not trump moral axioms and it doesn't make them either. Ethical values are shared values not personal feelings. Personal ethical feelings are indicative of universals, they are not warrant in themselves.

Lance

There may or may not be such a thing as a moral fact. If there are moral facts, then the corresponding prescriptive statements are true. If there are not any moral facts, then no prescriptive statements are true. You have yet to provide evidence for such a thing as a moral fact, so we are for the moment at a stalemate, as I don’t have any evidence against the existence of a moral fact.

Meta (notice "moral fact" is his term and the burden he tries to stick me with but in sort of luring me into thinking it was my assumption).

Ultimately God is, for me, the basis of all moral grounding. That's theological ethics.IN that case essence proceeds being. That's the ultimate basis for all grounding.

In talking about ethical theory which is broader than moral philosophy or theological ethics, then you have to appeal to a broader base and have agreement based upon shared values, or else either consign yourself to being ignored, or force people people do your bidding regardless of their beliefs. Oddly though my own moral philosophy frowns upon the latter so I have to find points of agreement that even atheists and theists share. Either that or don't have agreement.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Love, God's character as love forms the basis of all ethical judgment. The basic grounding that makes right and wrong is the relation of an action to the motivation in love.

Lance

Absolute rubbish. I believe Fat Joe says it best when he sings, “Whats luv got to do – got to do – with it?”

Meta

cute. but I suspect you have nothing to put in its place. Atheists don't like the concept of love and it makes you feel wimpy who knows. I suspect you are on some kind of hard and bitter kick but that's not important.

Nothing else makes any sense. Let's get into it and I'll prove it.

Lance

But seriously now, what has the love of a god to do with what one ought to do? Maybe this makes more sense in your head where I assume you have redefined the word ‘love’ to have something to do with morality.

(Acutally he's half right. He probably thinks of love as wanting to have sex. The Greek term translated "love" in terms of God's love in the NT--Agaope--does have to do with mortality but I didn't define it that way the Greeks did.)

There's a reason why I called it "the background of the moral universe." It's not the "up front" reason for things, it's the back reason. It's underneath all the surface stuff. That goes back to what I told Hans about the transcendental signifier. The link from organizing principle to concepts and logical conclusions, is the way in which the organizing principles creates a hierarchy of meaning. God is at the top of the hierarchy and God's character is the basis, God's nature as being itself, is the basis for love and then for ethics. the link link form love to ethics would take longer. there are more steps that's the basic idea.

God is love
God created everything
therefore, the reason for everything is love.

something like that.


Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
"fancy" implies either arbitrary or some from of trivial personal reference. God is not trivial, god is not just another guy. God is not a human being, he's not a big man in the sky. He's not just another guy with another opinion. God is the basis of all good by virtue of the fact that he is the source of all love (love in the sense of will to the good of the other).


Lance

God is not trivial?

Meta:

right

Lance

That is most definitely up to debate.

Meta:

nope. Nothing could be more obvious do you not understand how logic works? why is something grounded? becasue it has a higher principle that makes it so. that's the hierarchy of reality. The thing at the top is God and that's because God is the creator of it all and the organizer. It's God's basic principles that make the hierarchy and everything that comes out of it.

Anyways there is no reason for you to assume that the personal reasoning behind why one holds a certain moral belief is trivial. Believing it is wrong to kill people because you have a deep respect for human life is in no way trivial. I think you are too quick to judge.

sure, but it's not a grounding either. It's just a personal predilection you equally have the opposite feeling. Being person is not what makes it true. look at how deeply illogical that is. What if God were a broody kid who says "I have these deep feelings too my deep feeling to send you to hell." Now well wouldn't make it right because it's a deep person feeling? If deep personal feelings are what make things right why is God's deep personal feeling not right? Then it comes down to a matter of power.

at this point most people would bring up fairness. That's not fair. o now we have somethign other than deep personal feelings. now we have a universal to deal with. right? I can follow this line of reasoning until i come to a point where I prove that he motive force behind fairness is love. the motive of justice is love and so on.

Lance:

And no God is not another man with another opinion; he is another person with another opinion.

Meta:

nope he's not. "HE" is the transcendental signifier, the thing that makes meaning. He is the authorized of all authorizing the thing that creates everything. Thus all tings exist for his purpose not yours not mine. one of the primary lies you have fed that God is not any better or more important than you. that is self idolatry it's the major sin of the age. of cousre God is more important than everything becuase god is the basis of all reality.

Lance:

God has his own personal moral law, as we all do, which is described in the bible.

Meta:

That's part of the great deception that his destructing humanity. you are fed a poison that destroys your reasonnig. Look at how totally idiomatic that idea is. It says you are just as much a god as god. but if god has person feelings then he can send you to hell you have no right to object because hey he has the feelings, that makes it right hu? why not? you want to bring something else into it like justice that means feelings aren't makes it all true.

feelings are not what makes things true. feelings tell us about reality beyond ourselves they don't' create reality in us.

Lance:

There is no more moral reason to follow God’s moral law than my own.

Meta:

That's a lie. It's the ultimate evil. don't you realize that's make Hitler Hitler?HU? that's he basic lie of all murderers and all dictators. put yourself above truth, deg rate and pull down form heaven the truth of reality the truth of all goodness. put up yourself on that level with no justification at all. You have no more reason why your feelings should be it than yud o why God's should not be it.

Lance:

Of course he is the biggest of us all, so there is reason to follow his moral law if you value certain things, like your own life.

Meta

that has nothing to do with it. might doesn't make right. God is right because he's God--the basis of reality and the transcendental signified. I said signifier but I meant signified.
(I just didn't have the energy to do the old wind up on Ground of Being, but in fact you know to say that is the "biggest of us" is not a statement one can make about the Christian God, because that's not the ground of being,it's another thing in creation. The basis of reality can't be called "the biggest thing" that would be comparing it to something and it's totally incomparable).

Lance:

I don’t know what you mean by God being the source of all love, but I have news for you; I love people and God is not involved.

Meta:
wrong! we are not capable of love on our own. the only reason we can love is because we are hooked up to God. God is the source of all love. Our ability and capacity to love is a result of being made in god's image.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Who else would be the authority and the judge but the all knowing creator?

you are all knowing? you have your personal feelings. so do I?

stop being ridiculous. that's just self worship it's a trip. it's a silly little trip young people try and when you are old like me you will know it was a stupid mistake. feelings are not knowledge and they are not warrants for truth. you turned off the feelings that were valid warnings you turned them off ages ago.

I have studies that show that atheists have low self esteem and leads them to hate God. that sounds to me like the self worship and self idolatry is just a reaction to poor self esteem.

what do you do when personal feelings compete? why should yours be any better than mine? Kind makes you think there has to be some universal thing that everyone can appeal to hu? Well wouldn't that mind that created it all and that knows all and can get inside your head and know your feelings better than you do be the the real all knowing one? I guarantee you you do not know my feelings.

what if your personal feelings trample on my right? how does that make you more right than me just becuase you want something and I have it? There has to be orbitrating voice there that is not and is not me that says "this is not fair for you to kill this guy and take his things just because you have a personal feeling that you want them."


Lance:

If God does exist, then I agree he has the authority to judge us. This is not because he is all knowing though, but because he is all powerful. The most powerful one is always able to bully everyone else into following his moral law.

Meta:

so you are not cable of conceiving of right apart from being a bully? Then that doesn't really recommend you as a moral philosopher. I hate to say it if you don't understand the concept of having an ethical theory that's more advanced that just "do this or I will pound your head to jelly" then perhaps your moral philosophy is not that great hu?

Lance:

If God doesn’t exist, then the next most powerful people are your government. Then it’s their law which you are judged by.

Meta:

why do you equate being powerful with being right?

Lance:

I understand though, that the argument you are using goes like this:
1) If people are the moral law makers, then they have the power to abuse it
2) people sometimes abuse their power
People can’t be the moral law makers

I think it is much easier to see the flaw in your reasoning when it’s put into a formal argument form.

Meta:

that's not really it. tha'ts maybe a part of it.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
God's base of motivation is his character as the ground of being nad the source of love. Love is the background of the moral universe. That phrase means (rooted in St. Augustine btw) that love is the basic motivation behind all etheical stands and universals.

Lance:

Bollocks. I have moral beliefs which have nothing to do with love, and I’m sure you do to.

Meta:

see your feelings are leading you astray. they are telling to reject the bias of the good. personal feelings are not always valid and they never the basis for moral axioms.