tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2190834154640151903..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Meta Ethical theoryJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5416914574123732192008-11-17T12:18:00.000-08:002008-11-17T12:18:00.000-08:00Given your premises about there being no objectivi...Given your premises about there being no objectivity and no basis for determining whether something is good or evil on an atheistic model, how does "grounding" ethics on God escape the problem on a theistic system? Supposing God's opinions were available to us, wouldn't they still be God's opinions? If there is no independent basis from which we can judge morality, how can we establish whether God's opinions are good? Are you simply defining "good" as whatever God thinks?<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>One of the most incredible things in this world to me that I will never get over is how people can just forget the concept of God and start pretending like God is just another guy. He's not any body special, he's just Joe Shmoe from the bar next door and I am free to disagree with him call him an ass tell him to go to hell.<BR/><BR/>how do you know God is right?<BR/><BR/>Incredible!<BR/><BR/>how the hell do you know up isn't down? how do you know tables are thing to put things on? how do you know numbers are for counting?<BR/><BR/>how can God be wrong? how can the source of goodness and love not be the basis of right and wrong?<BR/><BR/>how can the source of being be false? how can the essence of what is good not be good?<BR/><BR/><BR/>God has no opinions.<BR/><BR/>this is all very silly. God is the basis of all reality God is the standard. God is the objective basis of all truth.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18002217376858220222008-11-17T10:27:00.000-08:002008-11-17T10:27:00.000-08:00Given your premises about there being no objectivi...Given your premises about there being no objectivity and no basis for determining whether something is good or evil on an atheistic model, how does "grounding" ethics on God escape the problem on a theistic system? Supposing God's opinions were available to us, wouldn't they still be God's opinions? If there is no independent basis from which we can judge morality, how can we establish whether God's opinions are good? Are you simply defining "good" as whatever God thinks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34942638126631214812008-11-16T15:07:00.000-08:002008-11-16T15:07:00.000-08:00Seems to me like Justin, while calling morality a ...Seems to me like Justin, while calling morality a "myth" (I assume meaning the same thing as a "fantasy"), finds humanism good in the sense that it is "constructive," while being "destructive" is bad. If morality is a fantasy, what is "good" about "constructive" and "bad" about "destructive"?<BR/><BR/>That said, I appreciate your changing the title of your post, Joe, and the clarification of the difference between "objective" and "grounded." It does seem to me that our morals have to be grounded in something to be valid. I have heard some humanists ground them in "reason"-- in other words, that it's reasonable to be "constructive" not "destructive." That makes more sense to me than just calling morality a "myth," though human reason too has its limits and therefore is not as effective a means of grounding than in the nature of God.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-29048541957595987792008-11-16T12:34:00.000-08:002008-11-16T12:34:00.000-08:00my Ph.D. work was done at a secular university.my Ph.D. work was done at a secular university.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84646389712342650232008-11-16T12:32:00.000-08:002008-11-16T12:32:00.000-08:00atheist just don't' know anything about ethics as ...atheist just don't' know anything about ethics as an academic subject. they don't' know who Rawls is. they are idiots.<BR/><BR/>they can send all the hate mail they wont that proves they are a hate group.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-44285738076431041832008-11-16T08:12:00.000-08:002008-11-16T08:12:00.000-08:00Response from a reactionary, anti-intellectual thu...Response from a reactionary, anti-intellectual thug. (You do need a comma there, btw.)<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>thanks</B><BR/><BR/>Problem's not fairness. Problem's that you're wrong about there only being two sides, about the relationship between those two sides and human behavior, and about the premise in general.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Did I say there are only two sides? that was a mistake if I said that. I compared two sides, I don't think I said there are only two.</B><BR/><BR/>Number of Sides:<BR/>There's atheism, and then there's probably close to six billion versions of religion, most of which contradict each other. That's six billion and one sides.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Not important. yes there are as many ideas about religion as there are people to have them, So? There are as many ways to be human as there are people to be human, does that mean being human is wrong?</B><BR/><BR/>Behavior and Religion:<BR/>There are religious people who, motivated by their religion, do constructive things in the lives of others.<BR/><BR/>There are religious people who, motivated by their religion, do destructive things.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>I didn't say anything about the truth of religion. My beef was the way these two go at it on message boards and neither sides understands the basis of meta ethical theory.</B><BR/><BR/>There are atheists who, motivated by some non-religious internal desire, do constructive things in the lives of others.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>personal motivations don't come into it either.</B><BR/><BR/>There are atheists who, motivated by some non-religious internal desire, do destructive things.<BR/><BR/>Those religious people who behave constructively say the ones being destructive aren't really [insert faith here]. Muslims who say their religion is about peace while other Muslims say it requires murder. Christians who say their religion is about tolerance while other Christians think gay people are going to hell. Etc.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>It's not all gravy you know: ah the rich pageantry of life</B><BR/><BR/>Religion has been a lubricant for kindness and for hatefulness. It cannot be demonstrated as the source of either.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>yes but the issue I'm concerned about is meta ethical thinking.<BR/><BR/>I was pissed when I wrote that becasue it was met on CARM by a bunch mocking yahoos who don't know shit abut ethics but shoot their mouths off everyday about how bad Christian morality is. And a bunch of ignorant Christians are who are always telling the other side they need "objective" morality, or "absolutes."</B><BR/><BR/>Religion, then, is completely unreliable as an ethical guide. There will always be some other religion with equal objective claim to "the truth" and there will always be people claiming to be of my faith who "aren't really [insert-faith-here]."<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Religion is unrelable if you ask everyone in the pew what they think and what's what. But how would it be if we ask everyone at walkmart what to do about the ecnomny? Does that make ecnomics unreliable? Christianity has a huge brain tust in all the major Universities of the world and it lead the way in Meta ethical theory (Kant was a Christain) so why not use the thinkers instead of the dumb shits in the pew?<BR/><BR/>No offense fellow dumb shits.</B><BR/><BR/>Atheism is also not an ethical guide, but then, it never pretends to be, so who cares?<BR/><BR/><B>It deems to critique Christian morality and Dawkamentalists waste a lot of indignation on the theme that they have a better sense of the moral than do christians</B><BR/><BR/>The Premise:<BR/>The problem here is you're treating morality as if it objectively exists in some real way. It doesn't.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>No I'm treating it as though it's a real academic subject with a history and conversation and certain themes that have been discussed for centuries, and all fo that is the case.</B><BR/><BR/>Morality is a ward. It's a throwback to superstition. It's the idea that if I create a set of behavioral rules, then expect everyone to follow them, then everything will be ok and the demons won't come get us in the night.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>that's the knid of the dumb shit thinking that justifies Abu Grabe. That's the kind of "just go by your feelings" crap that led to the Manson family</B><BR/><BR/>Some people, religious or no, are going to prefer selflessness. Some people, religious or no, are going to prefer selfishness. Morality as an absolute that can be referred to is a myth. Theism and atheism are completely beside the point in this matter.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>what did I say about "absolutes in my post?" go read it again and od a report. You clearly didn't read it closely.</B><BR/><BR/>An atheist myself, I consider myself humanist by ethicality. Humanism is constructive and absent of any superstitious underpinnings. It works. You might look it up.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Out modded superstition. humanity is a myth. you are not human. ethics is superstition, just follow your feelings. you are an individual not a human.</B><BR/><BR/>I am aware that not everyone will go along with humanism. That's unavoidable. It'll be ok.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>I don't think you understand the basics of humanism. did you know it was invented by Christians? it was. The "Renaissance humanism" ever heard fo it? they are all Christians.</B><BR/><BR/>All we've ever done as a species is make it up as we go along. It's worked so far and, I believe, it will work better the more of us are openly honest about it instead of appealing to morality and other ancient myths to try to control each other and our world.<BR/><BR/>7:54 AM<BR/>Delete<BR/><BR/><B>that is incredebly ignorant. I am suprpized but really I shouldn't be. atheism is about destorying learning it's abuot erasing western civlization an replacing it with stupid people on message boards.<BR/><BR/>humanity has survived because we invented rule of law, and humanism is about human morality and human values. incredible that you know so little about the things you calim to believe.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13266443362601540112008-11-16T07:57:00.000-08:002008-11-16T07:57:00.000-08:00I changed the framework for the post to eliminate ...I changed the framework for the post to eliminate the meanness.<BR/><BR/>The difference in grounding and "objective" is that "objective" can mean many things: it can mean true in all situations and times, it can mean demonstrable in such a way that no rational person could argue with it. You can think of other meanings too but they are all inadequate. You can see from these two they are not valid.<BR/><BR/>The first is too rigid and the second isn't true, anyone can still dispute moral axioms and you can't prove what axioms people should use in such a way that no one could argue with it.<BR/><BR/>Grounding just means Grounding, a reason for being, a rational warrant for believing it.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49195315797928764942008-11-16T07:54:00.000-08:002008-11-16T07:54:00.000-08:00Response from a reactionary, anti-intellectual thu...<B>Response from a reactionary, anti-intellectual thug. (You do need a comma there, btw.)</B><BR/><BR/>Problem's not fairness. Problem's that you're wrong about there only being two sides, about the relationship between those two sides and human behavior, and about the premise in general.<BR/><BR/><B>Number of Sides:</B><BR/>There's atheism, and then there's probably close to six billion versions of religion, most of which contradict each other. That's six billion and one sides. <BR/><BR/><B>Behavior and Religion:</B><BR/>There are religious people who, motivated by their religion, do constructive things in the lives of others.<BR/><BR/>There are religious people who, motivated by their religion, do destructive things.<BR/><BR/>There are atheists who, motivated by some non-religious internal desire, do constructive things in the lives of others.<BR/><BR/>There are atheists who, motivated by some non-religious internal desire, do destructive things.<BR/><BR/>Those religious people who behave constructively say the ones being destructive aren't really [insert faith here]. Muslims who say their religion is about peace while other Muslims say it requires murder. Christians who say their religion is about tolerance while other Christians think gay people are going to hell. Etc.<BR/><BR/>Religion has been a lubricant for kindness and for hatefulness. It cannot be demonstrated as the source of either.<BR/><BR/>Religion, then, is completely unreliable as an ethical guide. There will always be some other religion with equal objective claim to "the truth" and there will always be people claiming to be of my faith who "aren't really [insert-faith-here]."<BR/><BR/>Atheism is also not an ethical guide, but then, it never pretends to be, so who cares?<BR/><BR/><B>The Premise:</B><BR/>The problem here is you're treating morality as if it objectively exists in some real way. It doesn't.<BR/><BR/>Morality is a ward. It's a throwback to superstition. It's the idea that if I create a set of behavioral rules, then expect everyone to follow them, then everything will be ok and the demons won't come get us in the night.<BR/><BR/>Some people, religious or no, are going to prefer selflessness. Some people, religious or no, are going to prefer selfishness. Morality as an absolute that can be referred to is a myth. Theism and atheism are completely beside the point in this matter.<BR/><BR/>An atheist myself, I consider myself humanist by ethicality. Humanism is constructive and absent of any superstitious underpinnings. It works. You might look it up.<BR/><BR/>I am aware that not everyone will go along with humanism. That's unavoidable. It'll be ok.<BR/><BR/>All we've ever done as a species is make it up as we go along. It's worked so far and, I believe, it will work better the more of us are openly honest about it instead of appealing to morality and other ancient myths to try to control each other and our world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-904782083561789672008-11-16T04:49:00.000-08:002008-11-16T04:49:00.000-08:00It would make more sense if you said some atheists...It would make more sense if you said <I>some</I> atheists are rectionary anti-intellectual thugs. And even then, it's still debatable.TJWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10062810047649142057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64238876278537323132008-11-15T19:53:00.000-08:002008-11-15T19:53:00.000-08:00I think your analysis is fascinating, Joe. I don'...I think your analysis is fascinating, Joe. I don't think I had thought about this issue in those terms before.<BR/><BR/>But the title of the blog post isn't fair to atheists like Quantum Troll or LA Canuck or Fleetmouse.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm trying to understand-- what is the difference between "objective" and "grounded in the character of God"?Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.com