Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on January 18, 2017, 06:40:22 am
-
http://elpais.com/elpais/2017/01/18/album/1484723253_119819.html#1484723253_119819_1484723404
You couldn't make it up. And they stopped allowing Brit expats their winter heating-allowance...
I live at sea-level and the hill behind Pollensa is freakin' white! It gets like that every year. Winter electricity bills are almost double summer ones, and those are high enough to squeeze the pips whether or not one is seated. In truth, a state pension pays for about 50% of a careful lifestyle. God alone knows what those who didn't have a reasonable earning potential in their working years do. Sell crack, maybe.
;-(
Rob
-
Snowfall in Saudi Arabia and Arctic sea ice at lowest-ever-recorded levels.
"A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
;)
-Dave-
-
Who would want to live in such a cold place?
This week, there is no snow in Toronto and the day temperatures are in the plus range.
-
As I see it, the true potential of global warming will lie in reduced heating bills. As a side-benefit, my terrace (already unique within the area) will become a much-prized mooring, possibly housing the new yacht club HQ, turning the little development into the next Port Grimaud. You see? All things come to 'im wot waits!
By then, the soaring pound will have made me a millionaire again (oh the heady days of the lira and peseta, when I earned millions a year!) and all I will have to worry about will be the paint job on my next Riva.
Who needs weed? A little heat is all it takes.
Rob
-
Cold wave in January, who would have thought:)
-
We're breaking records here down south. It was 78 here yesterday. Previous record was 74. It has been this way for weeks. Daily highs near records, daily lows at the normal high. Saving a lot on the heat bill. Of course, three weeks ago we got down in the single digits and came close to a record low.
It may be that what we will experience in the near future is extreme variability.
I personally like cool winters. Where I live we are blessed with glorious springs, beautiful crisp falls, and relatively mild winters. Summers are hot and humid. The old folks would describe that feeling as "close".
What will global warming mean to use here? Probably nothing. Slightly warmer winters will be a benefit all the way around. Better for business (tourism is our number one source of revenue, agriculture is second) and better for the economy. Warmer summers won't change anything. We routinely deal with upper 90's and low 100's.
It is hard to resist the impulse to project what we are experiencing now and/or what we have experienced in our short lives onto what we know or expect in regard to global warming. I remember winters as a teen in which ponds stayed frozen over for weeks. I haven't seen that in decades. I also remember summers, 30 years ago, where it stayed over 100 for 2 weeks. Haven't seen that since. In truth, none of this is relevant to global climate change. The statistical 'n' of 50 years of experience or data is meaningless.
-
Polar bears, which are already drowning and starving in record numbers...
"As climate change melts sea ice, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050."
http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat/Polar-Bears.aspx
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2499/polar-bears-across-the-arctic-face-shorter-sea-ice-season/
And some people we don't seem to care much about...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/
-
The simple truth is that we are too many. Perhaps a nuclear accident will render millions sterile and, that way, save us from ourselves in the longer run.
China has/had ? a policy on family size but got crucified for recognizing the problem and trying to do something about it. Our "anything goes" mindsets are too liberal for our own good; freedom has become its own curse.
Nope, don't look to me for workable answers.
Rob
-
Interesting fact: Chinese family sizes were already plummeting before the 1-child policy was introduced, due to improved education of women and availability of contraception.
The UN population projections show that China and Europe have stopped, or will very soon stop growing. Southern Asia will soon plateau. Pretty much all the growth projected over the next 80 years is expected to occur in Africa, in particular the bits with the lowest standards of education and dysfunctional states. The rise of IS and other religious insanities will of course accelerate growth, since they remove all freedom of choice from women.
I can only say I'm very glad I'll be long gone before the projected 12 billion happens: given the current 7,5 billion already consumes everything the planet can produce annually in 7-8 months, I can't imagine us actually getting there.
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html
-
Rob,
FWIW I think you are right and I doubt there are any viable answers. Compared to 50 years ago there are nearly 4 billion more people in the world (up 115%). That's the driving force behind nearly every other problem. We put 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every second of every day, along with lots of other stuff.
It's interesting that since 1970 (nearly the same period) the global wildlife population declined by 58% percent. I don't think it's coincidence and there is no reason to think the trends will stop.
-
...
I can only say I'm very glad I'll be long gone before the projected 12 billion happens: given the current 7,5 billion already consumes everything the planet can produce annually in 7-8 months, I can't imagine us actually getting there.
...
I've been having similar thoughts for quite a while. Frankly, the only thing that amazes me about any of this is that we got here so fast. I never thought I would live long enough to see the drastic changes we've already seen, and as Monty Python might say, I'm not dead yet.
-
As I see it, the true potential of global warming will lie in reduced heating bills.
But higher costs for air conditioning in the much hotter months. It's more expensive to cool a home than it is to heat it (I know this by comparing my utility bill difference between winter and summer).
Alan
-
But higher costs for air conditioning in the much hotter months. It's more expensive to cool a home than it is to heat it (I know this by comparing my utility bill difference between winter and summer).
Alan
I have air con. I installed it in the early 80s in hope of cont¡nuing to do darkroom work in Spain. That became untenable for other reasons than temperature, and I never use the unit anymore. I detest air con. for it makes the outside reality worse and stops one being able to adjust to it quickly. The same holds even more true in the car: I have 'climate' but much prefer an open window.
Some modern air con. units also double as heaters; they do run ultra expensively; is your unit one of the dual-purpose types?
The problem with electricity in Spain is that it has, historically, always been high-cost: you see this in the way that many shops, still, today, will keep the lights off until a customer walks in. Many people don't know this habit and assume shops are closed when they are not. I think something similar happens in rural France: my wife and I drove through France, mainly north/south and the reverse, many times, and it was always hard to spot a café or wherever that was obviously open for business. Everywhere looked both closed and deserted; secret France, indeed!
My electricity bill comes with a graph showing the usage per month. It is hugely higher in the winter months.
Rob
-
What will global warming mean to use here? Probably nothing.
Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.
-
I have air con. I installed it in the early 80s in hope of cont¡nuing to do darkroom work in Spain. That became untenable for other reasons than temperature, and I never use the unit anymore. I detest air con. for it makes the outside reality worse and stops one being able to adjust to it quickly. The same holds even more true in the car: I have 'climate' but much prefer an open window.
I don't like AC either but here in the Washington DC area the weather is so awful from mid June through August. Humidity is very high and unless you run AC you will get mold in your home. We keep the thermostat up high and use it just to get the moisture out of the house.
-
I don't like AC either but here in the Washington DC area the weather is so awful from mid June through August. Humidity is very high and unless you run AC you will get mold in your home. We keep the thermostat up high and use it just to get the moisture out of the house.
All you need's a dehumidifier! I'm assured they extract gallons from the air. Don't know how expensive they are to run, though.
The summers are okay here because one can keep the glass windows open and the shutters closed, so there's constant air circulation as, being an island, there's ever movement. Also, a mountain ridge runs the length of the northern coast (about a mile away) and that brings its own circulation - and interesting cloud patterns along its length. But winter is evil: dark patches appear in the kitchen along the ceiling by the window, simply because the natural air flow has to be kept out, and I do make quite a lot of pasta... The poor extractor fan hasn't a chance against the steam which makes the wall tiles run with condensation.
I hate winters.
-
All you need's a dehumidifier! I'm assured they extract gallons from the air. Don't know how expensive they are to run, though.
Dehumidifiers do work but not for prolonged spells of H+H! We use the dehumidifier all summer, but it has trouble keeping up when it's over 30°C (86°F) for more than a few days in a row with high humidity.
-
Polar bears, which are already drowning and starving in record numbers...
"As climate change melts sea ice, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050."
http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat/Polar-Bears.aspx
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2499/polar-bears-across-the-arctic-face-shorter-sea-ice-season/
And some people we don't seem to care much about...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/
Warming frigid land areas will mean more livable area for brown bears and grizzlies, birds, trees and all sorts of plants and animals as they expand their populations and ranges. Unfortunately, politics only presents the negatives. More balanced research is required to show just what real effect these climate changes will do. It's not only about polar bears. As an aside, we don't know if polar bears will drift back to land to hunt prey changing their food mainly from seal to other animals that inhabit land areas. I suspect that is happening already if not yet discovered.
-
More balanced research is required to show just what real effect these climate changes will do.
I despair for the human race if people like you are allowed to be in positions of authority. Oh ... 20th January .... :-(
-
Warming frigid land areas will mean more livable area for brown bears and grizzlies, birds, trees and all sorts of plants and animals as they expand their populations and ranges. Unfortunately, politics only presents the negatives. More balanced research is required to show just what real effect these climate changes will do. It's not only about polar bears. As an aside, we don't know if polar bears will drift back to land to hunt prey changing their food mainly from seal to other animals that inhabit land areas. I suspect that is happening already if not yet discovered.
And the rest of the animal kingdom, living in huts, villas or penthouses (it's totally indiscriminate, hitting rich and poor alike) beside the sea will either drown or sail away in their megayachts, raising another glass of champers to the sun and tide bringing down the curtain on their homes and holiday pads. St Moritz next time; the flowers are beautiful in spring...
I'm told Florida will vanish. As it probably will anyhow, if that cliff falls off in the Canary islands first.
The only polar bear I ever saw was in a zoo, poor bugger; and the only brown one was in a zoo, too. We certainly have served them all so well, haven't we! But hey, the circus is leaving town for good, so that will balance things out.
Rob
-
Warming frigid land areas will mean more livable area for brown bears and grizzlies, birds, trees and all sorts of plants and animals as they expand their populations and ranges. Unfortunately, politics only presents the negatives. More balanced research is required to show just what real effect these climate changes will do. It's not only about polar bears. As an aside, we don't know if polar bears will drift back to land to hunt prey changing their food mainly from seal to other animals that inhabit land areas. I suspect that is happening already if not yet discovered.
Animals can't adapt as fast as we're changing things, there are not many places they can go, and it's nearly everything, not just polar bears. Recent studies have found that 58 percent of the global wildlife population vanished in the last 50 years. In the last 20 years we have converted 10% of the world’s wilderness to our own use, with only 23% of the world’s land area remaining as wilderness today. In my lifetime many common and widespread American songbird populations have declined by 50 to 80 percent while numerous woodlands and rural areas, including the one I grew up in, became nothing but housing developments and shopping malls. I don't think any of this will stop and most species that aren't useful to humans (we'll save cows and chickens) end up extinct. Even so, we ought to at least realize the consequences of what we're doing.
-
Thanks for your post, DeanChriss - I was getting depressed by the level of ignorance demonstrated here.
-
Animals can't adapt as fast as we're changing things, there are not many places they can go, and it's nearly everything, not just polar bears. Recent studies have found that 58 percent of the global wildlife population vanished in the last 50 years. In the last 20 years we have converted 10% of the world’s wilderness to our own use, with only 23% of the world’s land area remaining as wilderness today. In my lifetime many common and widespread American songbird populations have declined by 50 to 80 percent while numerous woodlands and rural areas, including the one I grew up in, became nothing but housing developments and shopping malls. I don't think any of this will stop and most species that aren't useful to humans (we'll save cows and chickens) end up extinct. Even so, we ought to at least realize the consequences of what we're doing.
You're blaming human population expansion causing changes in wildlife population to effects of climate change. What are the statistics directly effected by climate change? Who determined that the climate of the 1800's was the perfect situation? Maybe if it is a little bit warmer that it could be better for populations of animals and plants in general? While the poplar bear may decline, other animals may expand. Look at the tropics where there are more species than anywhere else. Mainly due to higher temperatures year around. I'm not arguing if it's getting warmer. I'm asking for the research that shows how the diversity and quantity of species are effected. We really don't get much on that except some general comments how it's going to be bad. But no real proof that I can find on population changes that will occur or are occurring due to climate change. The charts just support that climate change is happening.
-
We are entering an anti science era based largely on greed and ignorance. Now more than ever the public needs to understand the nature of science and how it is used as a tool. The theory of of human caused global warming is supported by countless peer reviewed studies. Peer Review is when others can call you on your BS.
Here is an interesting article, from a non science source. Still it is interesting.
Mt Lyle Glacier, Yosemite (http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Glacier-was-once-Yosemite-s-largest-now-it-s-6572765.php)
-
Furthermore,
Look at the tropics where there are more species than anywhere else. Mainly due to higher temperatures year around.
Alan, I have to respectfully disagree with this. The reason for high species diversity in the tropics goes beyond temperature. Still I like your photo related contributions.
Hugh
-
So we're back on climate change. My view is that so-called climate scientists who truly believe in the dangers of increased CO2 levels are probably suffering from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).
We know that many housewives have an obsession with cleaning the house every day, and that people in general who are obsessed about the cleanliness of the environment that their children are playing in, might induce future medial problems for their children, as a result of protecting the immune system from dealing with common bacteria.
I see the same sort of attitude in AGW alarmists. For example, it is well-known that increased CO2 levels encourages plant growth. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 can increase crop production by as muchg as 40%.
However, the globl warming alarmists, point to studies that imply that in major crops such as rice and wheat, increased CO2 levels tend to result in decreased protein content, and that this is a terrible worry.
How ridiculous! If anyone is suffering from a lack of protein, rice and wheat are not the food products that would be recommended. It would be meat, fish, chicken, eggs and so on.
If meat, fish and chickens are not available, then it would be sensible to insist on eating brown rice which contains more protein than white rice.
-
My view is that so-called climate scientists who truly believe in the dangers of increased CO2 levels are probably suffering from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).
That's because you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. There is a mountain of evidence on the causes and consequences of co2 levels. What have you got? Nothing.
-
Chill on the attacks. You don't accomplish anything for the good of the discourse or the forum. If someone does not accept your or others argument, then so be it. Try a different reasoning if you want to influence.
Frank
-
Dehumidifiers do work but not for prolonged spells of H+H! We use the dehumidifier all summer, but it has trouble keeping up when it's over 30°C (86°F) for more than a few days in a row with high humidity.
Absolutely! I run a dehumidifier in the family room in addition to the central air during the summer. When the evening temperature is 80F with loads of humidity and no breeze open windows don't do much at all. I'm all in favor of natural ventilation to keep things cool and we have some big trees in our yard but it is of little help in July and August here.
-
You're blaming human population expansion causing changes in wildlife population to effects of climate change. What are the statistics directly effected by climate change? Who determined that the climate of the 1800's was the perfect situation? Maybe if it is a little bit warmer that it could be better for populations of animals and plants in general? While the poplar bear may decline, other animals may expand. Look at the tropics where there are more species than anywhere else. Mainly due to higher temperatures year around. I'm not arguing if it's getting warmer. I'm asking for the research that shows how the diversity and quantity of species are effected. We really don't get much on that except some general comments how it's going to be bad. But no real proof that I can find on population changes that will occur or are occurring due to climate change. The charts just support that climate change is happening.
I apologize if I have blurred problems caused by overpopulation and global warming, but it makes little difference to me if we populate most life to extinction, warm it to extinction, or both. I think the impacts of warming, human population growth, pesticide use, pollution, and countless other factors that impact wildlife cannot be readily separated. For instance we know climate change has a major and obvious detrimental effect on polar bears and some other species. At the same time factors like habitat loss and pesticide use may play a bigger role in the dramatic drops recorded in songbird populations. We know that climate change plays a role in changing migration patterns, locations and times, but I do not believe anyone knows what percent of the population decline is due to warming. We only know it is a contributing factor for many bird species. The bottom line is that wildlife diversity and the total population of all wildlife species combined have only declined even as some specific species in specific locations have increased. That's bad news, but it's also reality.
It makes no sense to me that we could eliminate most of the earth’s wilderness, burn most of what we get from it to create heat plus 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, replace it with heat absorptive surfaces like dirt, pavement, buildings and rooftops, and have no effect on climate. Common sense tells me that’s not a reasonable conclusion, but I know that complex systems do not always follow common sense rules. Since I am no climate scientist I look to the consensus opinion of people who spend entire lifetimes studying it. That consensus consists of the best and most critically scrutinized information that exists, and it says human caused global warming is both real and serious.
I'd also mention that even oil companies that used to fund junk science studies with predetermined and opposite conclusions now acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change. A statement by ConocoPhillips says “We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.”. Shell and others have issued similar statements. That does not mean they are doing much about it, but at least the facts are well acknowledged. Politicians continue to muddy the facts for obvious reasons.
-
Driving to Palma de Mallorca from the north-east involves running down a hill towards that city. On some summer days, as far back as the 80s, the view of Palma was more a view of a tobacco haze spreading right over said city and over the Bay of Palma. In winter, no such haze that I've noted. With several thousand hire cars off the road and most powerboats asleep in their berths, it's not surprising.
If you live in Palma, that's the shit you're breathing in much of the year. No need to go to Delhi nor even to China. Even Paris has problems these days... Of course there's no human input!
Rob
-
Furthermore, Alan, I have to respectfully disagree with this. The reason for high species diversity in the tropics goes beyond temperature. Still I like your photo related contributions.
Hugh
I like your photos too. Curious what the other reasons for high species count in the tropics? Could have to do with lots of rain also. What else? Which reminds me of the joke about which species G-D favors the most? It seems to be beetles as there are over 600,000 varieties of them. BUGS!!
-
Bacteria would have to be high on the list, i think.
The tropics - i would think readily available resources allowing many avenues of evolution.
Frank
-
You can actually see that warming climate changes are increasing the amount of populations. As it warms up in the north countries, the tree line moves up the mountain. Grasses grow and subsequently insects, small mammals followed by more birds of prey and other animals move up the mountain as well. The same is true as the tundra melts year around in greater areas. These areas get populated by increasing numbers of animals and plants. But you never read about these things. Only how the polar bear is decreasing. Science and the media should present all sides and facts, not just the effects that support their arguments. When they provide weighted info to support their views and objectives, they lose people because there is a sense of dishonesty in the advocates of climate change.
-
Alan,
I just think it is too easy to simplify a complex ecological principle. High spceis diversity has also been recorded in cold areas such as upwelling waters off the coast of California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_evolutionary_time To be fair, I guess you are right, but there is more to it. I would also say that having a number of top level predators can result in creating greater species diveristy of plants and animals. The only reason I even replied was I just finished reading Where the Wild Things Were by William Stolzenburg. At this very moment I am releasing plenty of CO2 as I sit by my wood stove. Wood is our only source of heat and it supposed to snow by this evening. We have plenty of wood due to beetle killed trees.
-
Trump has said that global warming isn't true, and that he had the most bigly audience for any presidential inauguration ever, so the polar bears should be safe. Er ...
-
...
Curious what the other reasons for high species count in the tropics?
...
Species evolution and diversification take a very long time. The tropical forests of Africa and South America began to develop only after being essentially wiped out by the climate change of the ice age, something like 2.6 million years ago. The most diverse rain-forests in the world are in Southeast Asia, in particular on the Malaysian peninsula and island of Borneo. Because of their physical location these forests were untouched by drastic climate change (until now) for more than 130 million years, making them the oldest and most diverse forests on earth. The same thing accounts for the higher diversity of forests in Africa and South America relative to forests in, say, North America. Basically the extra diversity comes from species having had more time to develop, not because of the particular temperature range. Rapid shifts in climate lessen diversity because species that developed to accommodate a particular climate over millions of years cannot change in a centuries or decades. That's true whether the climate change is natural or human caused.
-
We are entering an anti science era based largely on greed and ignorance.
And whose fault is that? Could it just possibly be that its the fault of "scientists" who use "science" to further political and ideological agendas that many people are just now seeing through? Could it be the fault of presenting bad science as fact? If not, where is the anti-science bias coming from? The religious right? Gimme a break.
Now more than ever the public needs to understand the nature of science and how it is used as a tool.
Exactly. In the west and particularly the US the general population is woefully ignorant about what constitutes good science. Many don't believe the prevailing science but don't know why. An equal portion believe the science and also don't know why. Both of these belief structures are equally WRONG.
Climate science is by nature weak science. Climate data is young. Everything else is extrapolated or consensus based. Very little hard data. Very little direct verification of hypotheses. Very little consistently reproducible data. Tons, and tons and tons of sketchy statistics. All of this rolled together to form models. These same sorts of models are the ones that predict 100% chance of snow, at least 8 inches, in the next eight hours and you wake up to no snow at all. Its the best we have. But it isn't very good especially when the predictions are global (which, really, is a special kind of hubris).
And the truth is that climate science has probably got it right that we are in a warming trend....even though there is STILL debate about that WITHIN the climate science communities. They might be right that it is manmade. But that is as far as any real science goes. What happens next week or ten years from now is based on models of incredibly weak and tenuous data.
Because of that, plenty of smart people are not willing to risk world economies and cultures based on unproven and untestable models. Thats not anti-science, thats common sense. And anyone suggesting that socialism, more laws and a restructuring of world economic systems is that answer to climate change will be perfectly willing to sell you a bridge in Manhattan too.
The theory of of human caused global warming is supported by countless peer reviewed studies. Peer Review is when others can call you on your BS.
Peer review, much like consensus is weak science. It all hinges on who the peers are and who gets heard. The tactics of the ideologues in climate science to drown out dissent have been documented. Sadly, it has rendered peer review in this field totally untrustworthy.
-
Thanks for your post, DeanChriss - I was getting depressed by the level of ignorance demonstrated here.
Your terse little ad hominem attacks have been far more telling about ignorance than any posts in this thread. Worshipping at the alter of science is hardly proof of intelligence.
-
Animals can't adapt as fast as we're changing things, there are not many places they can go, and it's nearly everything, not just polar bears. Recent studies have found that 58 percent of the global wildlife population vanished in the last 50 years. In the last 20 years we have converted 10% of the world’s wilderness to our own use, with only 23% of the world’s land area remaining as wilderness today. In my lifetime many common and widespread American songbird populations have declined by 50 to 80 percent while numerous woodlands and rural areas, including the one I grew up in, became nothing but housing developments and shopping malls. I don't think any of this will stop and most species that aren't useful to humans (we'll save cows and chickens) end up extinct. Even so, we ought to at least realize the consequences of what we're doing.
This line of thought has so many problems. First, we are animals, right? Evolved just like all the rest. There are limited resources. We grow, others decline. If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species. Survival of the fittest. We are stronger. We win. For now.
Second, we only want to talk about polar bears and animals that are furry and cute. Pretty trees and woodlands. That is a fetish. It is a desire. It has nothing to do with the evolution of life on the planet. In a world view in which all this happened by accident a slug has no more or less value than a polar bear. Just because we 'like' polar bears is hardly cause to buck the evolutionary order. From that standpoint we are only obligated, evolutionarily, to preserve that which preserves us.
Third, there is no evidence that human expansion, global warming or anything else has produced less life on this planet. Bacteria are by far and away the most successful life form. They are doing just fine and in great diversity. Sure, we can't see them, they don't have big sad eyes, but they are life and they are thriving.
Fourth, so much of the climate argument hinges on having things a certain way, typically the way they are now, or were 20 years ago. Why? Things change. If we are changing them, so what?
So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.
-
So I state, essentially, that a climate change of plus one or two degrees (which is all anyone is actually predicting) will have little effect on the location I live in and you say:
Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.
Why unbelievable? Let's say its 3 degrees warmer, on average, every winter and summer here in the mid-Atlantic. From your response you suggest that there will be a huge negative impact. Why? What will it be? You must know since you brand my assessment as "unbelievable". So tell me how you know that on balance the negative effects of such a change will, on balance, outweigh the good effects?
Of course you can't. And neither can any climatologist. And if you find the suggestion that the effect might be neutral or even good, on balance, so unbelievable, then you are exposing far less understanding of the science you so fervently believe in than anyone else who is skeptical about climate change prognostications.
-
You can actually see that warming climate changes are increasing the amount of populations. As it warms up in the north countries, the tree line moves up the mountain. Grasses grow and subsequently insects, small mammals followed by more birds of prey and other animals move up the mountain as well. The same is true as the tundra melts year around in greater areas. These areas get populated by increasing numbers of animals and plants. But you never read about these things. Only how the polar bear is decreasing. Science and the media should present all sides and facts, not just the effects that support their arguments. When they provide weighted info to support their views and objectives, they lose people because there is a sense of dishonesty in the advocates of climate change.
Well expressed, Alan. These are the sorts of reasons why I became skeptical about the claimed dangers of rising CO2 levels. However, I wasn't always skeptical. If one knows nothing, or very little about a subject, it's quite natural to accept a 'consensus' view from so-called experts in the field.
About 20 years ago when the concern about global warming escalated, with constant coverage by the media all singing the same tune, I tended to assume that the problem must be serious.
However, 20 years ago I was quite ignorant on the subject of climate change. I'd never even heard of terms such as the Medieval Warm Period, and The Little Ice Age.
Of course, I'd heard of the (big) Ice Age, more correctly referred to as the last glacial period which ended about 10,000 years ago, but I wasn't aware of the historical record of numerous cold and warm periods in the recent past which had lasted for just 3 or 4 hundred years, and of course which had nothing to do with human-caused CO2 emissions.
Around 20 years ago I also recall listening to an interview of James Lovelock on the subject of human-induced climate change, which he thought at the time was a serious threat, in accordance with his theory of Gaia.
I find it revealing that today, James Lovelock, with his greater wisdom and the honesty to admit his past mistakes, has changed his position on human-induced climate change.
He now claims, “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.”
Check out the following article.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/green-guru-james-lovelock-on-climate-change-i-dont-think-anybody-really-knows-whats-happening-they-just-guess-lovelock-reverses-himself-on-global-warming/
-
This line of thought has so many problems. First, we are animals, right? Evolved just like all the rest. There are limited resources. We grow, others decline. If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species. Survival of the fittest. We are stronger. We win. For now.
Second, we only want to talk about polar bears and animals that are furry and cute. Pretty trees and woodlands. That is a fetish. It is a desire. It has nothing to do with the evolution of life on the planet. In a world view in which all this happened by accident a slug has no more or less value than a polar bear. Just because we 'like' polar bears is hardly cause to buck the evolutionary order. From that standpoint we are only obligated, evolutionarily, to preserve that which preserves us.
Third, there is no evidence that human expansion, global warming or anything else has produced less life on this planet. Bacteria are by far and away the most successful life form. They are doing just fine and in great diversity. Sure, we can't see them, they don't have big sad eyes, but they are life and they are thriving.
Fourth, so much of the climate argument hinges on having things a certain way, typically the way they are now, or were 20 years ago. Why? Things change. If we are changing them, so what?
So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.
Jeez! And I thought that I was the only truly objective poster on this forum, George. ;D
-
This line of thought has so many problems. First, we are animals, right? Evolved just like all the rest. There are limited resources. We grow, others decline. If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species. Survival of the fittest. We are stronger. We win. For now.
Second, we only want to talk about polar bears and animals that are furry and cute. Pretty trees and woodlands. That is a fetish. It is a desire. It has nothing to do with the evolution of life on the planet. In a world view in which all this happened by accident a slug has no more or less value than a polar bear. Just because we 'like' polar bears is hardly cause to buck the evolutionary order. From that standpoint we are only obligated, evolutionarily, to preserve that which preserves us.
Third, there is no evidence that human expansion, global warming or anything else has produced less life on this planet. Bacteria are by far and away the most successful life form. They are doing just fine and in great diversity. Sure, we can't see them, they don't have big sad eyes, but they are life and they are thriving.
Fourth, so much of the climate argument hinges on having things a certain way, typically the way they are now, or were 20 years ago. Why? Things change. If we are changing them, so what?
So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.
Well said. I've always wondered how a purely scientific statement of facts-on-the-ground can take someone from the "is" of the data to the "ought" of what "someone" thinks should be done about it, if anything. All the "oughts" are philosophical ponderings, and therefore statements of worldview and not in any way scientific, per se.
I believe that we should be good stewards of the planet, but that comes from philosophical and worldview convictions, not from scientific data. The data is viewed and evaluated by my worldview and therefore drives an "ought" from the "is" of the data.
I also have a hard time with the "time, plus chance, plus nothing gets us to where we are" worldview proponents looking at the data and coming up with any kind of altruistic "ought" from the data. It strikes me as rationally incoherent. It is perfectly fine for those individuals to express their personal preference in terms of action based on the data - but that's all it is, personal preference and has no foundational basis for any appeal to anyone else vis-a-vis their own preferences.
Rand
-
I was curious as to what was really happening with polar bear population due to climate change and the lessening of arctic sea ice. So it turns out that the bears are doing just fine. Strange I haven't seen this news in local media. I wonder why? What's interesting is that the biggest danger to these bears are thicker ice in the Spring due to colder temperatures. Apparently when the ice is thicker, seals leave the area because they can't find air holes to breathe. So the bears can't get the food they need after the winter to support their cubs.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/23/as-the-arctic-shrinks-norways-polar-bear-population-booms-grows-30-in-11-years/
-
So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.
That is true, as far as it goes - nature red in tooth and claw, que sera sera. Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go. I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.
-
So I state, essentially, that a climate change of plus one or two degrees (which is all anyone is actually predicting) will have little effect on the location I live in and you say:
Why unbelievable? Let's say its 3 degrees warmer, on average, every winter and summer here in the mid-Atlantic. From your response you suggest that there will be a huge negative impact. Why? What will it be? You must know since you brand my assessment as "unbelievable". So tell me how you know that on balance the negative effects of such a change will, on balance, outweigh the good effects?
Of course you can't. And neither can any climatologist. And if you find the suggestion that the effect might be neutral or even good, on balance, so unbelievable, then you are exposing far less understanding of the science you so fervently believe in than anyone else who is skeptical about climate change prognostications.
What is unbelievable is that someone is so impervious to the nature of the debate on climate change that they think it is about the impact of a few sunny days in their backyard. What will the wider negative effects be? Inundation of coastal areas of the US? Desertification of other areas of the US and other parts of the world (seen any news from Syria lately?) Problems with water supply (California?) Will it happen for sure? No of course not for sure, but according to the best estimates of people who have actually worked on the issue, and not just internet keyboard warriors who put their faith in "alternative facts", it's the likeliest outcome. That's cause for concern.
-
I was curious as to what was really happening with polar bear population due to climate change and the lessening of arctic sea ice. So it turns out that the bears are doing just fine. Strange I haven't seen this news in local media. I wonder why? What's interesting is that the biggest danger to these bears are thicker ice in the Spring due to colder temperatures. Apparently when the ice is thicker, seals leave the area because they can't find air holes to breathe. So the bears can't get the food they need after the winter to support their cubs.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/23/as-the-arctic-shrinks-norways-polar-bear-population-booms-grows-30-in-11-years/
From the article:
"The fact of the matter is, globally, polar bear numbers are much greater than they were 40 years ago — largely thanks to restrictions on hunting."
and, why do you imagine that the thicker spring ice is not also an outcome of climate change?
For a slightly more authoritative view you might like to consult:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiolett/12/12/20160556.full.pdf
-
I was curious as to what was really happening with polar bear population due to climate change and the lessening of arctic sea ice. So it turns out that the bears are doing just fine. Strange I haven't seen this news in local media. I wonder why? What's interesting is that the biggest danger to these bears are thicker ice in the Spring due to colder temperatures. Apparently when the ice is thicker, seals leave the area because they can't find air holes to breathe. So the bears can't get the food they need after the winter to support their cubs.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/23/as-the-arctic-shrinks-norways-polar-bear-population-booms-grows-30-in-11-years/
Hi Alan,
I'm glad you seem to be so optimistic, but do face the real facts (not 'alternative facts', but a more complete overview) as well. The Polar bear population's growth is mainly due to the fact that there is less hunting than some 40 years ago. This has allowed the bears to recover despite the shrinking extent and overall thickness of the ice, and the increasing level of pollutants (top of the foodchain animals suffer most due to accumulation effects). Also the disturbance by snow scooters has been reduced by regulation. Studies (http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/26029) show significant geographic variability in densities of bears across different types of habitats in the study area (much denser populations on land-fast ice and pack ice areas in the Russian regions than in sea ice regions).
Sure there may be years that the sea spring ice is thicker, but it cycles from year to year and the trend is down. The thickness as such is also not the same as the extent. Bears are also not stationary, at least most of them aren't, and they migrate and they need ice on certain routes to do that. Without proper tracking/tagging, it is also hard to make meaningful statistical estimates and predictions. For example, the population (people, not bears ;) ) of my home country has lately (also?) grown more by immigration than by childbirth and despite medical interventions, but does that mean that the native population is thriving?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Regarding consensus on the human effect on climate change here are a couple of links to look at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
We are right now at a stage where renewable energy is crossing fossil energy market prices. The transport sector is right in front of a fundamental change. What this all means is that the price of energy is going down and this will drive the change so that over time the fossil fuel burning does much less damage. This change will happen no matter who believes in the human effect on climate change. That's a huge bonus! It will take quite some time, but I think it will be much quicker than most believe today. It will have a huge impact on the world and change current world powers and politics. Some countries may go bankrupt.
-
That is true, as far as it goes - nature red in tooth and claw, que sera sera. Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go. I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.
"That is true, as far as it goes - ..." Interesting comment. I would sincerely ask, "How far does it go?"
I'm guessing that the argument isn't a Christian position, rather, an eloquent presentation of the materialist position - given to make a point. And, I think you've put your finger squarely on the difficulty in trying to remain consistent with a materialist worldview by making reference to the Holocaust. It is quite obviously a great evil that a materialist may only object to based upon personal preference, not upon any objective transcendent morality.
Rand
-
From the article:
"The fact of the matter is, globally, polar bear numbers are much greater than they were 40 years ago — largely thanks to restrictions on hunting."
and, why do you imagine that the thicker spring ice is not also an outcome of climate change?
For a slightly more authoritative view you might like to consult:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roybiolett/12/12/20160556.full.pdf
You're picking the parts to support your argument. Sure hunting has effected the populations. But the article also stated:"“The evidence is now very strong that recent declines in summer/fall sea ice have little to no negative impact on polar bear populations: the real threat to polar bears is thick spring ice,” Crockford said.
Also the study you quoted in that link is based on modeling not actual counts which are difficult to do.
The overall point is polar bear population is expanding not declining. However, you wouldn't know that by listening to the media which is distorting the news to make it seem like they are on their last legs. The full story is not being told. The media is biasing the news which is what they seem to do the best.
-
There are, I guess, two broad themes running through this topic: the effect of pollution on the Earth; the effect of pollution on people and upon other innocent animals, of which we are not part.
In the case of the former, any decrease in the white coverage of this oblate spheroid we call home will result in an unavoidable amount of solar heat being absorbed. If you question that - as photographers - it amazes me. If photographic experience isn't enough, I'd advise a trip to Spain where the vast majority of cars bought are white. No, it's not a colour that matches the fiery Latin temperament at all well, but it does serve to keep the people inside the cars from boiling in summer. So, conserve the north and south regions as well as is possible. If you live in some deserts you experience roasting days followed by freezing nights, illustrating the fact that where there is no cloud cover, the extremes of light (heating/cooling)are magnified. So, should we welcome perpetual clouds? Hardly: everything on the surface of Earth needs adequate sunlight to survive, including us. We don't need extended rainy periods, which our current excesses are encouraging, unless we all prepare for a sole diet of rice with rice. Oh, possibly with some remaining fish, too, if there was any left for you to buy, Chef!
Dealing with the population, on the other hand, pollution from exhausts of cars, aircraft, factories, power stations, all of those things that emit it, has never been shown to have a beneficial side. I remember well the days in the UK when coal was used for domestic heating. The results of that were terrible, with huge problems for movement of vehicles and even walking people. Not being able to see one's feet is not a geat exaggeration. That vanished almost the moment that controls were introduced; yes, fog still arrives as usual, but that is moisture, not lung-destroying carbon and sulphur chemistry. I can remember schools being closed early to save kids from the dangers of being killed by lost vehicles, and even when I was working it wasn't unknown for some of our departments to be let out early because of weather. Apart from the dangers to people, those disruptions affect profit.
In conclusion, it seems fairly obvious to me that even if a sound argument could be engineered to disclaim the effects of global warming on life, there is no sound reason to deny that lowering the pollution levels drastically helps people live healthier lives. As for smoking... no, that takes me into the health-care debate and I might find myself stating that smokers should be denied state medical aid along with habitual drunks.
;-)
Rob
-
So I state, essentially, that a climate change of plus one or two degrees (which is all anyone is actually predicting) will have little effect on the location I live in and you say:
Why unbelievable? Let's say its 3 degrees warmer, on average, every winter and summer here in the mid-Atlantic. From your response you suggest that there will be a huge negative impact. Why? What will it be? You must know since you brand my assessment as "unbelievable". So tell me how you know that on balance the negative effects of such a change will, on balance, outweigh the good effects?
Of course you can't. And neither can any climatologist. And if you find the suggestion that the effect might be neutral or even good, on balance, so unbelievable, then you are exposing far less understanding of the science you so fervently believe in than anyone else who is skeptical about climate change prognostications.
I guess you don't feel that the melting arctic ice cap, the melting glaciers in Greenland, or the breaking up of ice shelves in the Antarctic don't affect you in the mid-Altantic region where you live. Well I hope you don't live in Norfolk VA or some other area that is now subject to flooding because of increasing sea levels. Look at the concern about the Navy's huge installation in that area which is already being impacted. Climate science, just as with many other areas, is observational in nature. Huge strides have been made in recent years, witness the improved ability to predict sever weather and understand changing patterns. Now you might want to hold to the view that this is not causative proof for anything and that's your right. there are a bunch of us who take a contrary view and argue that some steps must be taken to address this. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not the subject of any controversy I'm aware of. The same is true for all the methane that escapes from oil and gas drilling efforts world wide (or worse flared off when it could be captured and used for energy production). Is it not a good idea to take some precautionary action?
-
You're picking the parts to support your argument. Sure hunting has effected the populations. But the article also stated:"“The evidence is now very strong that recent declines in summer/fall sea ice have little to no negative impact on polar bear populations: the real threat to polar bears is thick spring ice,” Crockford said.
Also the study you quoted in that link is based on modeling not actual counts which are difficult to do.
The overall point is polar bear population is expanding not declining. However, you wouldn't know that by listening to the media which is distorting the news to make it seem like they are on their last legs. The full story is not being told. The media is biasing the news which is what they seem to do the best.
I'm pointing out the parts of the article that you forgot to mention because it doesn't suit YOUR story!!
Here is a study of population numbers that again doesn't suit your story:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/14-1129.1/abstract
-
Regarding consensus on the human effect on climate change here are a couple of links to look at http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
We are right now at a stage where renewable energy is crossing fossil energy market prices. The transport sector is right in front of a fundamental change. What this all means is that the price of energy is going down and this will drive the change so that over time the fossil fuel burning does much less damage. This change will happen no matter who believes in the human effect on climate change. That's a huge bonus! It will take quite some time, but I think it will be much quicker than most believe today. It will have a huge impact on the world and change current world powers and politics. Some countries may go bankrupt.
Hopefully you are right, Hans, but it is estimated that even burning a fraction (a third, from memory) of hydrocarbons that HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCOVERED will lead to change in climate, so it may not be enough to rely on market forces to keep them in the ground.
-
Rob, no one wants to breathe polluted air. And I think we've done a pretty good job here in America to reduce pollution and lower energy use and attendant CO2 production by increasing the efficiencies of engine, motor, heating equipment and systems. The company I started in the 1970's provided energy management control to reduce usage. So I'm familiar with the industry. This is not an all or nothing scenario. We've been lowering per capita energy use for years.
The question regarding climate change is how much money do we want to spend to "prevent" global warming assuming we can even do that? Arguing that we should spend the money "just in case" is not a very good argument. There's only so much money to go around. Will the money we spend to reduce fossil fuel use be better used on other things such as for medicine for people who can't afford it, improving living conditions like providing water, heating and other basic services to people who don't have that presently?
-
Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go.
Not at all. It was not an expression of what I believe. It is the logical conclusion for those who believe in unguided evolution.
I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.
Wow. Really? Again, I do not believe in unguided evolution or the logical consequences of believing it. But yes, for those who have no moral basis for their beliefs one would see the Holocaust as just once group making its evolutionary way and nothing more. You have to be a theist for any other conclusion.
-
What is unbelievable is that someone is so impervious to the nature of the debate on climate change that they think it is about the impact of a few sunny days in their backyard. What will the wider negative effects be? Inundation of coastal areas of the US? Desertification of other areas of the US and other parts of the world (seen any news from Syria lately?) Problems with water supply (California?) Will it happen for sure? No of course not for sure, but according to the best estimates of people who have actually worked on the issue, and not just internet keyboard warriors who put their faith in "alternative facts", it's the likeliest outcome. That's cause for concern.
You are not paying attention. I said in my local area. Right here where I live. Now, I know, in my heart, why I should be concerned about people elsewhere who might suffer from climate change (and I do). But on what basis do YOU assert that I should care about them? And if you can't make a case for why I should care, then global warming is not relevant to me.
And let's be clear about California's water supply. That's about population and waste. Not global warming. Not yet anyway.
-
I guess you don't feel that the melting arctic ice cap, the melting glaciers in Greenland, or the breaking up of ice shelves in the Antarctic don't affect you in the mid-Altantic region where you live. Well I hope you don't live in Norfolk VA or some other area that is now subject to flooding because of increasing sea levels. Look at the concern about the Navy's huge installation in that area which is already being impacted.
These are some of the most dynamic coastlines in the world. They literally change daily. I have personally witnessed a 40 year cycle on the South Carolina coast in which a barrier island lost 100 yards of beach and then regained 150 yards. At high tide the water level is lower than anyone can remember. One island below this one is losing beach at a rapid rate. The tidal activity on these adjacent islands have nothing to do with sea level change. I suspect the same is true for Norfolk.
-
"That is true, as far as it goes - ..." Interesting comment. I would sincerely ask, "How far does it go?"
I'm guessing that the argument isn't a Christian position, rather, an eloquent presentation of the materialist position - given to make a point. And, I think you've put your finger squarely on the difficulty in trying to remain consistent with a materialist worldview by making reference to the Holocaust. It is quite obviously a great evil that a materialist may only object to based upon personal preference, not upon any objective transcendent morality.
Rand
Thank you Rand. You said it far better than I did.
-
These are some of the most dynamic coastlines in the world. They literally change daily. I have personally witnessed a 40 year cycle on the South Carolina coast in which a barrier island lost 100 yards of beach and then regained 150 yards. At high tide the water level is lower than anyone can remember. One island below this one is losing beach at a rapid rate. The tidal activity on these adjacent islands have nothing to do with sea level change. I suspect the same is true for Norfolk.
Yes, and the Army Corps of Engineers (and other groups) make things worse by trying to tame nature when in cases such as this it cannot be tamed. Tidal activities will be impacted by rising sea levels as the encroachment of the tides will on average be much higher up the shoreline. The same events happen after hurricanes when there is significant erosion up and down the shoreline. Beach resorts spend a large amount of money following such events to replace the beach as the livelihood of the community depends on it. the US government spent upwards of $10B on flood control in New Orleans after Katrina. this is may have been a one off event but climate scientists are predicting more violent weather as result of change. I've lived in Bethesda for almost 40 years and the storms we have had in the last five years are much stronger than the past. perhaps it is a statistical aberration, but I'm betting on climate change.
-
This line of thought has so many problems. First, we are animals, right? Evolved just like all the rest. There are limited resources. We grow, others decline. If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species. Survival of the fittest. We are stronger. We win. For now.
Second, we only want to talk about polar bears and animals that are furry and cute. Pretty trees and woodlands. That is a fetish. It is a desire. It has nothing to do with the evolution of life on the planet. In a world view in which all this happened by accident a slug has no more or less value than a polar bear. Just because we 'like' polar bears is hardly cause to buck the evolutionary order. From that standpoint we are only obligated, evolutionarily, to preserve that which preserves us.
Third, there is no evidence that human expansion, global warming or anything else has produced less life on this planet. Bacteria are by far and away the most successful life form. They are doing just fine and in great diversity. Sure, we can't see them, they don't have big sad eyes, but they are life and they are thriving.
Fourth, so much of the climate argument hinges on having things a certain way, typically the way they are now, or were 20 years ago. Why? Things change. If we are changing them, so what?
So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.
First: Science provides information that we each deal with within our own moral framework. Morals are a human construct and unguided evolution has absolutely nothing to do with them. Your sentence "If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species." is a non sequitur. If you had said "If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally scientifically wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species" you'd be absolutely correct. Whether it is moral or not depends on you, and society's consensus of what is moral. Many people have no concern about human impact on any other specie, or even on other humans. Many have no concern for what sort of world is passed on to the future. Some argue that our sun will eventually burn out so nothing we do matters. None of them are scientifically wrong because science does not address morality. In my own view it would be a pretty crappy world without birds and other wildlife, but that's just me.
Second: True.
Third: I'm not at all sure about this. I doubt it, but it could be that the total amount of "life" by some measure (biomass?) might be constant. I've never seen anything relating to this.
Fourth: We know that the most biodiversity exists in places where climate has been reasonably constant for the longest periods of time. We're talking not about today or a hundred years ago, but tens to hundreds of millions of years. As for the "so what?", any response to that is a moral judgment. If you feel no responsibility to conserve any of what we've got for the future you'll find nothing in science to contradict you.
I'm not looking to science to say anything we are doing is wrong. I'm looking to science for the best knowledge available and hoping our society's consensus of what is moral will cause us to conserve some of what's here now. You know, the old saw about preserving the world for the future. Maybe someone a decade or a century from now would enjoy seeing wildlife, or just sitting by a lake and watching the ducks, as much as I do.
-
You are not paying attention. I said in my local area. Right here where I live. Now, I know, in my heart, why I should be concerned about people elsewhere who might suffer from climate change (and I do). But on what basis do YOU assert that I should care about them? And if you can't make a case for why I should care, then global warming is not relevant to me.
And let's be clear about California's water supply. That's about population and waste. Not global warming. Not yet anyway.
Seems like it's you who is not paying attention. You seem to imagine that the impact of climate change local to you is only about a change in your weather. It's not. Even you in your little bubble will be affected by the consequences I mentioned. It's not just about caring about other people.
-
Again, I do not believe in unguided evolution or the logical consequences of believing it.
Which is exactly why it's pointless attempting to have this discussion with you.
But yes, for those who have no moral basis for their beliefs one would see the Holocaust as just once group making its evolutionary way and nothing more. You have to be a theist for any other conclusion.
Nope.
-
That is true, as far as it goes - nature red in tooth and claw, que sera sera. Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go. I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.
2.5 pages in and Godwin's law strikes already. Jeremy, your vilely offensive slur means that you have lost - permanently - such credibility as you might once have managed to maintain.
Jeremy
-
2.5 pages in and Godwin's law strikes already. Jeremy, your vilely offensive slur means that you have lost - permanently - such credibility as you might once have managed to maintain.
Jeremy
What slur do you imagine I have made, Jeremy?
-
I have asked Jeremyrh to publicly clarify his statement "I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason..."
Please avoid inflammatory posts until he clarifies his precise meaning or intention.
Christopher Sanderson
-
Quote from: N80 on Today at 04:21:24
So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.
That is true, as far as it goes - nature red in tooth and claw, que sera sera. Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go. I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.
Chris Sanderson has asked me to clarify my meaning here, which I am happy to do.
My point is simple - N80 suggested that the extinction of the polar bear would be no big deal in evolutionary terms. My comment as regards the Holocaust was "reductio ad absurdum" - to point out that his claim that something is nothing to bother about because it is of no importance in evolutionary terms is completely absurd, just as it would be absurd, and indeed profoundly offensive, to suggest that the Holocaust was no big deal because it does not affect the overall evolutionary future of the planet.
If this was not clear, and if people understood something other than what I actually intended them to understand, then please accept my apologies.
-
. . . but that's just me.
And that is one of the problematic aspects of the materialist worldview, it "is" just you (or any individual). The individual is the measure of all things, merely based in preference, with no appeal to transcendent values of any sort. Most materialists do not and cannot live out their philosophical position with logical consistency. Your heartfelt appeal in this thread seeming to me a robust example of this, as is your own clarification in stating that the Holocaust is "reduction ad absurdum" based on your moral preference. I did not misunderstand your using it in that sense, but I stick with my position that you could quite literally use it as an example based on logical coherence with a materialist worldview.
Some, e.g. Richard Dawkins (one of the self-professed "brights"), do strive to be rationally consistent. Hence his quote from "River out of Eden."
In River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life Richard Dawkins wrote:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
Again, Dawkins writes: “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Rand
Edited to expand thought and respond to clarification.
-
Morals are a human construct and unguided evolution has absolutely nothing to do with them.
If morals are a human construct then they have no binding qualities. Large groups of people have passed laws and done things (Hitler, slavery) that were accepted by the culture in which they occurred. If morals are a human construct then slavery, in 1850 would have been "moral". So the idea of morality depending on human trends and desires makes morality utterly meaningless. It is no more than a prevailing opinion.
Unguided evolution has everything to do with the notion of morality. If we are a product of unguided evolution and nothing else then morality is, at best, a genetically encoded survival mechanism. This concept is weak at best since many moral behaviors are either neutral or detrimental when it comes to survival. And even if true, there is nothing binding about how our DNA leads us to behave and many behaviors we known to be inherent we find universally reprehensible.
Whether it is moral or not depends on you, and society's consensus of what is moral.
Again, this idea takes all meaning from the word 'moral'. It is a virtual oxymoron. Again, without some level of "oughtness" the idea of relative morals is absurd.
Many people have no concern about human impact on any other specie, or even on other humans. Many have no concern for what sort of world is passed on to the future.
Correct, but your rather classical existentialist view on the matter suggests that people who have concern for others are just as "moral" as those who don't. Right?
In my own view it would be a pretty crappy world without birds and other wildlife, but that's just me.
Me too. But who are we to project our wants and desires on someone else? Unless, of course, there is a moral imperative to do so. But that can only come from one place.
Third: I'm not at all sure about this. I doubt it, but it could be that the total amount of "life" by some measure (biomass?) might be constant. I've never seen anything relating to this.
I'm sure biomass fluctuates. I'm also sure beyond a doubt than some fraction of the biomass will benefit from rising temperatures.
We know that the most biodiversity exists in places where climate has been reasonably constant for the longest periods of time.
I'm sure you'll anticipate this response: Why do we humans, as a species, need to be concerned about biodiversity? Of course I know the pat answers and wholly agree with them. But if biodiversity is declining as we humans ascend, well................
If you feel no responsibility to conserve any of what we've got for the future you'll find nothing in science to contradict you.
Exactly! That's a hard pill to swallow for folks who believe anything preceded by "Scientists say............"
I'm not looking to science to say anything we are doing is wrong.
Correct. Science can say nothing about what is right or wrong. But if your approach to science is purely materialistic then there are no morals. This is the heart of the existential crisis. That is why, in this argument which at heart is about stewardship, there is nothing the materialist can say about how anyone responds to the data. All answers are correct if each individual is existential comfortable with them. Don't tell me to drive a Prius or turn off my AC because that is your (not you specifically) existential decision, not mine.
Maybe someone a decade or a century from now would enjoy seeing wildlife, or just sitting by a lake and watching the ducks, as much as I do.
Me too. And that's the irony. I believe there is a moral imperative for us to be good stewards of this planet. It is a command. We must do it. We should do it. We ought to do it. But if that command or that imperative comes simply from another person or another group then it can be ignored unless enforced by violence which is how "morals" derived by humans are usually made "moral".
-
Chris Sanderson has asked me to clarify my meaning here, which I am happy to do.
My point is simple - N80 suggested that the extinction of the polar bear would be no big deal in evolutionary terms. My comment as regards the Holocaust was "reductio ad absurdum" - to point out that his claim that something is nothing to bother about because it is of no importance in evolutionary terms is completely absurd, just as it would be absurd, and indeed profoundly offensive, to suggest that the Holocaust was no big deal because it does not affect the overall evolutionary future of the planet.
If this was not clear, and if people understood something other than what I actually intended them to understand, then please accept my apologies.
Once again Rand has responded far more elegantly than I could have.
-
Once again Rand has responded far more elegantly than I could have.
Yawn.
-
First: Science provides...
Second: True.
Third: ...
Fourth: ...
Thank you. I wrote a reply in much the same vein as yours but far less diplomatic. Then I never posted it, probably just as well.
Losing hope in humanity a bit there.
-
If morals are a human construct then they have no binding qualities.
Unguided evolution has everything to do with the notion of morality.
Again, this idea takes all meaning from the word 'moral'.
Exactly! That's a hard pill to swallow for folks who believe anything preceded by "Scientists say............"
Correct. Science can say nothing about what is right or wrong.
Me too. And that's the irony. I believe there is a moral imperative for us to be good stewards of this planet. It is a command. We must do it. We should do it. We ought to do it. But if that command or that imperative comes simply from another person or another group then it can be ignored unless enforced by violence which is how "morals" derived by humans are usually made "moral".
I feel stupider for having read all that but here goes.
I don't think it is a construct as much as it is an emergant phenomena.
Evolution has nothing to do with morality.
It is a concept that has meaning, but it is not a law or force of nature or binding in any way no...
It is not a hard pill to swallow.
Science says what is happening, what we do about it is up to us.
Wherever it comes from make little difference. This talk of morals in a topic of global warming is pretty useless. I think your entire line of reasoning is offensive. You are basically saying, if you believe in science, global warming is not important because lack of morality. If you reject science then you might find it important but we then we can't even know it is happening so... what, we get stay in la-la land? I don't really know what point you are trying to make.
I would just like to end with a quote from Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-
Religion, not science, provides the moral foundation. If people abuse or distort it, that's on them not the religion. Without religion we would have no purpose in life. We would just be atoms born one minute and sped off to nothingness the next. Without it, man decides what is moral and that can change to where we can see murder on an unimaginable scale. Religion also provides the moral foundation for care of nature. Science only provides information.
So the question of what to do with climate change even it is proven to be true becomes one of moral and practical decision making. There are no clear answers to these problems because there are no clear absolutes what any one action will do. There are trade offs to costs. Help in one area create hardships in another. Different people are effected differently depending where you stand.
-
Alan I very strongly disagree.
Religion provides a cultural and moral framework. Science does not. But that does not mean that we need religion to have morals. That is just not true.
-
I feel stupider for having read all that but here goes.
Maybe that is appropriate. (Couldn't resist, sorry.)
I don't think it is a construct as much as it is an emergant phenomena.
What? Emergent when? Why? And even if so, how is that relevant?
Evolution has nothing to do with morality.
Because you say so?
It is a concept that has meaning
Well that's a bold statement.
but it is not a law or force of nature or binding in any way no...
From a materialistic perspective that is exactly what I've been saying.
It is not a hard pill to swallow.
Say so many who will not even put it in their mouth. It is hard to swallow and it is the issue that defines our time. Right and wrong either exist or they do not. Either state has huge, hard to swallow consequences. The ONLY conclusion about either one of them that is logically unacceptable is that there are no consequences.
Science says what is happening, what we do about it is up to us.
Sort of. Science attempts to say what is happening. Its self defined limits are quite profound.
This talk of morals in a topic of global warming is pretty useless.
Again, ignoring the pill. The climate change movement suggests, no, commands, that we do certain things. It defines how we should and ought to respond. Neither science nor a movement have that moral authority. It is only an opinion. Nothing more. It so desires that moral authority but it has nothing to base it on.
I think your entire line of reasoning is offensive.
I'm sorry. Some are more easily offended than others. And then some 'get offended' to steer an argument........
You are basically saying, if you believe in science, global warming is not important because lack of morality.
Not what I said in any way. I have said the science is poor. I have said that the ideological response to enforce certain solutions to the perceived problem lacks moral authority. The first statement is arguable. The second statement is not.
If you reject science then you might find it important but we then we can't even know it is happening so... what, we get stay in la-la land? I don't really know what point you are trying to make.
Well, as the cliche' goes, I can explain it to you but I can't make you understand it.
I would just like to end with a quote from Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Yes, a typical and tired old atheistic cliche' with no logical basis. Sounds good but makes no sense and does not even reflect any portion of reality. But I'll counter it with this one from Heisenberg:
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
- Werner Heisenberg, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics (1932)
-
Alan I very strongly disagree.
Religion provides a cultural and moral framework. Science does not. But that does not mean that we need religion to have morals. That is just not true.
This is a logically untenable position. One which Sartre labeled cowardly. You can only have morals without God if you water down the meaning of the word 'moral'. Even that will not pass muster though.
But, you sound quite certain. Tell me, all of us, what basis there is for morality if not from a transcendental force. If you can do it it will be a historic moment. Sartre failed and so have far greater minds than him. But go ahead, we're all ears.
(I do not use the word religion for this. It is not the right word. Religion is a human institution and shares the same weaknesses with all other human institutions.)
-
And that is one of the problematic aspects of the materialist worldview, it "is" just you (or any individual).
...
If morals are a human construct then they have no binding qualities.
...
Well that's interesting but incredibly far from the topic of "Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?". Just for clarity I assume your definition of "materialist" is a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter, its movements, and modifications. I have never in my life been called a materialist before, but I did spend a significant part of my life studying physics and mathematics and made a living for 30 some years and counting helping my clients solve related problems. My parents were somewhat religious but I started being skeptical about religion about the same time I started thinking Santa Claus might not exist. I personally know quite a few Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and a few with odder beliefs. I have no problems with anyone believing whatever they like as long as they don't expect me to believe it too. There is no way to prove any of us right or wrong, and if believing something gives a person some comfort that's fine. Some aspects of Buddhism and Taoism are similar to how my own thinking evolved before I knew anything about those named philosophies. I don't think I was anything or anywhere before I was born. I also believe that when I die I will just cease to exist. Period. I think having a positive impact on the world and those around us while alive is the best anyone can hope to do, and that's what I try to do. Heaven and hell is what we make of the here and now.
I suspect you will say my having any concept of good and evil is logically inconsistent with my materialist philosophy. Maybe those concepts are something my parents instilled in me. They might be responsible for my empathetic tendencies. Or maybe we have evolved some chemistry in our brains that helps give us those traits. Maybe something else is going on but my very last bet would be on a deity. I've seen a lot of wildlife behavior over the years and we're not all that different, especially the primates. Whatever is responsible most creatures probably have it to some extent too. I guess that leaves my parents out of it. I don't know the answer to these questions but they are not something I ever wonder about or feel any need to answer. In fact writing this post consumed about 10 minutes that could be better used doing almost anything else.
As for all the doom, gloom and "nothing but pitiless indifference", believe what you like. Regardless of what you believe I'm a reasonably happy guy. If I knew I would die tonight I'd have few regrets. I'd be comfortable with having done some good in the world and having left a relatively small footprint on it. I've got nothing of significance to complain about and it has been quite a good life in all. It would be nice to have more time but nothing lasts forever.
This has all been interesting, but honestly the parsing of sentences is getting way too pedantic for me. It is also serving no purpose. If we agree on something, fine. To agree on something but argue about why we agree is close to insanity.
-
This is a logically untenable position. One which Sartre labeled cowardly. You can only have morals without God if you water down the meaning of the word 'moral'. Even that will not pass muster though.
Look inside yourself - Primum non nocere. A fine start for a humanistic morality.
-
Climate change has become a highly politicized discussion primarily because the potential solution flies in the face of the libertarian ideals espoused by capitalists – pure, free-market economics: I can make, manufacture and do what ever I please and whatever I can afford, no matter how it affects others, as long as I can make a profit. Gee, you know what, I can make a bigger profit by ignoring the fact that my factories are polluting the air and rivers. Oh, and I can make even more by paying my workers even less. Apparently, if conditions get bad enough, there is an economics solution as well, but I sure don't want to pay too much to clean things up as I have a profit to make!
But it really isn't (nor ever was) pure, free-market economics if we are not paying the full costs associated with our western lifestyle. If free-market economies hadn't been reigned in back in the 1930s, there wouldn't be much of the natural wildllands left. Rivers would be totally polluted along with the air and workers would be paid little to nothing because, in a free-market economy, those things are not important, until, that is, it begins to affect the pocket book of the corporate bosses.
It's the same reason slavery lasted as long as it did in the US. Free-market capitalism determined it was cheaper to use human slave labour. Under free-market capitalism, slavery could still exist today in America if it was deemed to be most economically efficient. Thank goodness, someone put morals above economics! (BTW - they weren't necessarily Christian morals as many/most slave owners were God-fearing, devout Christians - go figure!)
But, you see, it's not just about economics. It's about people. But economics rule the day, so that's why insurance companies are scared s--tless about global climate change and the billions in payouts they may need to make, unless, of course, they re-write our policies specifically to exclude anything that may be deemed climate-change related. But, I digress.
Some scientists are political, no doubt. But do you really think that when Charles Keeling first reported measurable increases in CO2 he had a political agenda? No. Do you really think all the scientists around the world who collect measurable changes in greenhouse gases all have the same political agenda? Some will, but by far the majority don't. I can't verify this for sure, but it's kind of built into pure science that scientists report, it's up to others to put a moral judgement on what they find (unless, of course, the scientists themselves find the implications of their data morally repugnant).
The greenhouse effect (the reason why Earth has a livable temperature) and its link to carbon in our atmosphere (along with water vapour and nitrous oxides) has been known since the 19th century. So, it's not rocket science to connect rising GHGs with rising temperature, especially when the carbon signature of the carbon in our atmosphere clearly points to carbon derived from the burning of fossil fuels.
This is not a theory, it's fact. There is nothing political about stating facts, only in hiding facts or presenting "alternative facts". Scientists are not choosing these facts, the facts are self-evident.
Finally, let's look this issue another way... What if something killed 200,000 Americans every year (http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829). What if it prematurely killed 5.5 million people worldwide every year (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249). Wouldn't you want your government do something about it? In World War II, the US lost 418,500 over the course of the war. This is 200,000 each and every year! These are deaths due to air pollution.
So now, what if coal mines and coal-burning power stations were shut down tomorrow? What if we switched tomorrow to electric cars and trucks and trains whose electricity comes entirely from renewable sources? The families of these hundreds of thousands of people who die every year from air-borne pollution would thank us. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_212100.htm), there are 69,460 people employed in "Coal Mining" (which includes thousands of ancillary jobs), and 172,000 people in oil and gas extraction (https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag211.htm), but we've just saved over 200,000 lives per year! BTW, the number of "Green Jobs" in the Utilities sector (https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/01/art1full.pdf) in 2011 was 289,045.
AND, according to a Forbes report from 2014 (http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/), there are twice as many solar workers as there are coal miners.
SO, let's for a moment set Global Climate Change aside and deal with the facts of employment and deaths due to air pollution from fossil fuels. Do you realize the good that can be done if we simply make the switch to renewable fuels? So, even without Global Climate Change, there is an argument to be made for moving away from carbon-based fuels. Now, add in the possibility that all these scientists, who may or may not have a political agenda, just may be right in their thinking... the argument for keeping the status quo with regards to fossil fuels evaporates.
-
Well that's interesting but incredibly far from the topic of "Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?".
Again, no. Climate change ideology comes with 'shoulds' and 'musts'. It comes with imperatives. It is therefore a moral issue. And therefore the basis for those imperatives are open to examination. if it was only a matter of climate science it would a whole other issue. But that ship sailed when the ideologues appropriated the science (however weak or strong it may be) to further typically communist views and imperatives. Many climate scientists share this ideology. Questioning the science and questioning the imperatives are both legitimate ways to view climate change and its implications.
Just for clarity I assume your definition of "materialist" is a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter, its movements, and modifications.
I have never in my life been called a materialist before,
And now you know. ;) The term naturalist is probably better but confuses some people who will think Muir or Audubon.
I think having a positive impact on the world and those around us while alive is the best anyone can hope to do, and that's what I try to do.
Commendable. But you must know that this approach to life is open to broad and potentially evil interpretation. With no moral base "a positive impact" can come in many forms, many of which you might not consider positive. Sartre was confronted with this and was unable to live by his own ideology. I admire Sartre because he understood that if we all make our own morality then there is no actual morality. Neitzsche did not struggle with this at all. The strong make the morals.
I suspect you will say my having any concept of good and evil is logically inconsistent with my materialist philosophy.
I would. Many here chafe against this but have no real rebuttal.
I don't know the answer to these questions but they are not something I ever wonder about or feel any need to answer.
Plato said "An unexamined life is not worth living." I agree and suspect that anyone who finds self examination easy or comfortable is deluding himself. (That is not what I am saying about you.) But I do think that if you adhere to a belief or ideology and are willing to suggest that someone else change against his will, such as 'you need to stop using your air conditioner' or 'you have enough money and should give it to someone else' then you either need to think about these things OR be very open to their opposition to your ideas.
In fact writing this post consumed about 10 minutes that could be better used doing almost anything else.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I find these conversations edifying and informative. They help me clarify my own beliefs.
I wonder why you decided to spend the time posting?
As for all the doom, gloom and "nothing but pitiless indifference", believe what you like.
My beliefs are outrageously optimistic. ;)
It would be nice to have more time but nothing lasts forever.
Nothing? ;)
This has all been interesting, but honestly the parsing of sentences is getting way too pedantic for me.
That is always the problem with this sort of discussion. To really understand what distinguishes justified belief from opinion requires a lot of parsing. Not many people have the patience or interest to do that.
It is also serving no purpose.
I think that is up for debate. Just because it doesn't interest you (and I can understand that) doesn't mean it is useless. I think there is nothing more important than understanding why you hold the beliefs that you do, especially when you expect others to share them. And that is the essence of climate change discussions.
-
Climate change has become a highly politicized discussion primarily because the potential solution flies in the face of the libertarian ideals espoused by capitalists – pure, free-market economics: I can make, manufacture and do what ever I please and whatever I can afford, no matter how it affects others, as long as I can make a profit. Gee, you know what, I can make a bigger profit by ignoring the fact that my factories are polluting the air and rivers. Oh, and I can make even more by paying my workers even less. Apparently, if conditions get bad enough, there is an economics solution as well, but I sure don't want to pay too much to clean things up as I have a profit to make!
So what are you saying? You don't like the free market so it is okay to appropriate science to change geopolitics just as long as it helps the climate? Do you wonder why this approach makes the science less credible?
It's the same reason slavery lasted as long as it did in the US. Free-market capitalism determined it was cheaper to use human slave labour.
Under free-market capitalism, slavery could still exist today in America if it was deemed to be most economically efficient.
This might be the worst misunderstanding of the origins and place of slavery in the American south that I have ever heard. The machinery of slavery was the antithesis of free market capitalism and the civil war, in defending slavery, was a reaction against those sorts of markets as the evolved in the north. Eugene Genovese has done extensive work on this topic. You might find it interesting. It is also a little shocking to hear someone pin slavery of free market capitalism but fail to mention Mao and Stalin and how they treated human beings.
Thank goodness, someone put morals above economics!
That never happened. The abolitionists, while virtually all Christian, had little overall effect on the abolition of slavery in the south. The US congress kept slavery legal well into the war. Emancipation did not officially occur until slavery was both no longer economically important to the north and strategically advantageous to the war effort. Up until close to the end the north was ready to make a truce with the south to end the war and continue to allow slavery in exchange.
(BTW - they weren't necessarily Christian morals as many/most slave owners were God-fearing, devout Christians - go figure!)
Christians get things just as wrong as anyone else.
Do you really think all the scientists around the world who collect measurable changes in greenhouse gases all have the same political agenda? Some will, but by far the majority don't.
The loudest and most influential ones clearly do and make no bones about it.
This is not a theory, it's fact. There is nothing political about stating facts,
There shouldn't be, but there is. The fact you are referring to says one thing. The other things, such as: because this carbon was man made it thus caused and will cause changes in the climate which will, in the balance, produce negative effects around the globe cannot be said, scientifically, or stated as fact based on the first fact. This is a prognostication based on models with varying degrees of statistical variance. Not fact and NEVER to be confused with fact. Calling this concept "fact" is either wrong or propaganda.
"alternative facts".
The new definition of any fact someone else disagrees with.
Scientists are not choosing these facts, the facts are self-evident.
That's an oxymoron. There is very little use in science for illuminating the self evident. Some facts are self evident. Most aren't. The ones that aren't require science.
These are deaths due to air pollution.
Climate change and deaths from pollution are two distinct issues, not to be confused. But let's state this another way: 500,000 Americans die every year due to cardiovascular disease. This is almost entirely due to diet and physical inactivity. If the government took away all food except for prescribed portions of proper foods and made us all exercise every day then we'd save millions of lives and an enormous burden of morbidity over a decade. Is the government obligated to do so? Should they do so? Do you want a bureaucrat (imagine your local DMV workers) feeding you and determining your exercise requirements? So sure. The government has a role. Most of us, even socialists and communists, will draw a line somewhere. Right?
What if we switched tomorrow to electric cars and trucks and trains whose electricity comes entirely from renewable sources?
We would run out of electricity the very next day. No one on the planet believes that the energy requirements of the west, much less the expanding east, can be met with renewable sources. Yes, the more sources the better, but let's not dwell in fantasy. And if the anti nukes had left the nuclear industry alone in the 70's the coal industry would be nearly gone. By your accounting that would have saved millions by now, right?
... the argument for keeping the status quo with regards to fossil fuels evaporates.
Again, not in the real world. But don't get me wrong here. I'm not an advocate of fossil fuel. I am a conservationist by nature. I am all about stewardship. I practice it every day. But the truth is there is no scenario in which alternative sources alone fuel this planet into the next century outside of some unexpected discovery the prospect of which will not feed the Chinese.
And while your hopes are sound, this commingling of science, politics, pollution stats and ideologies are damaging to efforts of positive change. If this planet is getting warmer because of fossil fuel use to the extent that a global catastrophe occurs, those who politicized the science are as guilty as those who ignored it.
-
I assume your definition of "materialist" is a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter, its movements, and modifications.
Yes, this is how the term is used in philosophical discussion. No connotation of "greedy" or "the Material Girl" type of thing is intended.
My point is really fairly simple. And you're correct in thinking that I see logical inconsistency in having a materialist world view, and then trying to justify values statements from that basis only. Please don't think that I "devalue" your values. I see your inability to be rationally coherent with your worldview as a good thing, and evidence of something more to the reality of things. I cannot attribute it to evolutionary psychology which is not science in any sense of the word, but speculation based on starting from a conclusion. Circular reasoning, so to speak. But the impulse toward goodness and stewardship and altruism is a good one. You just can't get there from "matter, its movements and modifications" alone.
My quotes from Richard Dawkins were to illustrate that there are very knowledgeable, thinking, highly educated people who do see the implications of their worldview and are not afraid to embrace them. I respect them for this. They are logically consistent and their worldview has coherence. It isn't what one would call optimistic, but at least it is honest and rational, based on the facts-on-the-ground as they see them.
People of good will can and do work together for good ends, even if their worldviews are radically different. I encourage this. But one must not think that the concept of good will, or good ends, can be logically derived from science. Some have tried in the last century, but that ended in more death and destruction than all previous centuries combined. Hardly anyone today would consider their definition of "good ends" as good. But they did. And even in the U.S., the eugenics movement was gaining real steam until the ugliness of its logical conclusion and extended implementation was seen in Europe.
Rand
-
Gosh - what a lot of sound and fury. I guess it's what you do in the absence of facts.
-
This is a logically untenable position. One which Sartre labeled cowardly. You can only have morals without God if you water down the meaning of the word 'moral'. Even that will not pass muster though.
But, you sound quite certain. Tell me, all of us, what basis there is for morality if not from a transcendental force. If you can do it it will be a historic moment. Sartre failed and so have far greater minds than him. But go ahead, we're all ears.
Okay! I'll try, but don't forget to nominate me for a Nobel Prize. ;D
When discussing such topics it's important to be very precise with the definitions of the key words involved. The word 'moral' is derived from the Latin, 'Moralis' which refers to the proper behaviour and manners of a person in society. The word is associated with concepts such as mores, customs and disposition.
The word 'transcendent', from the Latin 'transcendentum' refers to a process of 'surmounting, or rising above'. Extending the meaning, we get 'surpassing the usual limits beyond the range of usual perception', and 'free from the constraints of the material world'.
I'm guessing that the last phrase, 'free from the constraints of the material world' is what you have in mind when you refer to a 'transcendental force'.
So, to address your question, 'what basis is there for a morality which is not from a transcendental force', I offer the following argument.
The evolutionary process of all creatures on the planet, relies upon a morality (or proper behaviour) which is appropriate for the circumstance and the environment.
An ant hill, as in the attached image, which is a complex city of tunnels in a mound of earth, cannot be built and maintained without the ants conforming to a strict sense of proper behaviour, or morality. You might call it 'ant-like morality', or 'instinct-driven morality', but it is nevertheless a type of morality which is essential for the ants' survival in their present situation.
When the environment changes, for whatever reason, meteorite strikes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, changes in the earth's orbit, and so on, those creatures that fail to adapt to the changing conditions tend to become extinct. Those than can and do adapt, survive.
We exist because of the adaptive skills of our ancestors. Adaptive skills in creatures with small brains, like ants, are more dependent on genetic mutations and genetic variability.
Big-brained creatures like Homo Sapiens, who are now able to communicate almost instantaneously across the world, for the first time in the history of our planet, have a tremendous capacity to adapt to any changing environmental conditions.
When we fail to adapt, which is sometimes (perhaps often) the case, we have the capacity to learn from history (or at least some of us do). ;)
The paleontological record of our early ancestors suggests that Neanderthal man (or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) became extinct due to his inability to adapt to the encroaching Ice Age. The last 'Glacial Maximum' occurred about 24,500 BC. The cooling period began about 110,00 years ago. Neanderthal man became extinct about 40,000 years ago. The climate was getting colder and colder during those thousands of years, with many decades of alternating ups and downs, no doubt as we observe today.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens (as distinct from Homo Sapiens, who was also Neanderthal man) was able to adapt to those terribly cold conditions. The very low sea levels also helped the migration of tribes from Africa who were able to walk across areas that are now covered by sea. No boats were required.
The early Aboriginal settlers in Australia were also able walk into Australia and Tasmania, because sea levels were so low.
When discussing morality with religious connotations, we should not forget that many religious moral principles were first initiated as purely practical measures to counteract or prevent observed harmful effects. Eating diseased pigs, several centuries ago, was observed by the more intelligent members of the community, to be harmful to health. Banning the eating of pork can therefore be viewed as a rational decision by those in power at the time.
Unfortunately, religions in general tend to set dogmatic rules which might once have served a practical purpose, but might not serve any useful purpose in the changed conditions of a modern society. That's the tragedy of religious belief.
I like to use images to illustrate my point, so I've included a second photo of a lovely 'Long Neck' lady from Northern Thailand. Aren't the rings around her neck lovely! All females from an early age are required to permanently wear such rings in this society. Why? Why? Why? Is it purely decorative?
According to the Museum of Hill Tribe People in that area, there was a sound practical reason for women to wear such rings. Centuries ago, the job of the woman was to work in the fields harvesting crops. Tigers were a major predator in those days and would tend to attack the women by going for the jugular.
Some smart and adaptive chieftain sought a practical solution. All women must protect their jugular. The practice continues even though the original purpose no longer applies.
I rest my case. ;D
-
I don't think it is a construct as much as it is an emergant phenomena.
I think this is a key point actually, and one might think about emergent phenomena that we observe in nature and cellular automata that we create in the computer as a guide. Ants create complex structures following rather simple rules, and with limited physical and computational capacity. Imagine what emergent phenomena result from humans, with our astonishing brainpower! Rejecting all that in favour of the notion that we just follow orders from a sky fairy does not seem very sensible to me.
-
"Some smart and adaptive chieftain sought a practical solution. All women must protect their jugular. The practice continues even though the original purpose no longer applies.".............. Ray
Oddly enough, that's not the most threatened area when it comes to warfare. I can think of some of their more threatened regions that require protection from marauding 'soldiers' and independent militias.
And even beyond the obvious, what about protecting the minds of those poor women and girls, letting them breathe and develop to whatever their full potential? Tigers with stripes are a tiny threat in this world; worse the gurus in robes, of whatever colour and with or without stripes or chequer-patterned headdress.
Rob
-
"Some smart and adaptive chieftain sought a practical solution. All women must protect their jugular. The practice continues even though the original purpose no longer applies.".............. Ray
Oddly enough, that's not the most threatened area when it comes to warfare. I can think of some of their more threatened regions that require protection from marauding 'soldiers' and independent militias.
And even beyond the obvious, what about protecting the minds of those poor women and girls, letting them breathe and develop to whatever their full potential? Tigers with stripes are a tiny threat in this world; worse the gurus in robes, of whatever colour and with or without stripes or chequer-patterned headdress.
Rob
Rob,
The rings around the neck were to protect the women from tiger attacks which were a common occurrence in those days before the tiger became a threatened species. The purpose of the rings was not to protect the women from warfare with neighbouring tribes. That would have been another problem.
-
I wanted to tie up some loose ends in a final post:
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I should not have said it the way I did, but conversations like this absorb lots of time and lead nowhere. That same time spent recycling some paper would do more actual good for the cause we are discussing. Life is short enough that one has to choose what minutia deserves their time and how deeply it needs to be examined. Our priorities are different.
I wonder why you decided to spend the time posting?
It was and is interesting, to a point. See above.
My beliefs are outrageously optimistic. ;)
I said I was happy, but happiness is not optimism. Humanity has done a disastrous job of being planetary stewards. Most subscribe to some religion that you claim gives them a moral imperative to be good stewards of this planet. "We must do it", you say, yet we never have and still do not. It's great in theory but has never worked in practice. Youngsters of today have a less rich and diverse world than I've had. Future generations will have much less. That's not optimism, but it is what we have already made and continue to make at an accelerating pace.
I think there is nothing more important than understanding why you hold the beliefs that you do, especially when you expect others to share them.
I do not expect others to share them. Most do not. It is also not up to me to give others the morals that their deities have supposedly supplied already.
People of good will can and do work together for good ends, even if their worldviews are radically different.
Thank you for that.
-
I think this is a key point actually, and one might think about emergent phenomena that we observe in nature and cellular automata that we create in the computer as a guide. Ants create complex structures following rather simple rules, and with limited physical and computational capacity. Imagine what emergent phenomena result from humans, with our astonishing brainpower! Rejecting all that in favour of the notion that we just follow orders from a sky fairy does not seem very sensible to me.
The problem is that the orders from above clearly change markedly from culture to culture and from one historical era to another. There are four major world religions and a host of minor ones. Over the centuries the orders from above have sometimes been violent and damaging and at other times generally genial and peaceable but their adherents have all claimed at one time or another that they were the echt command. So which set of orders if any is the real deal? They can't all be, can they? Alas, there is simply no way of telling. I suspect people realized a very long time ago now that this rather rules out religion as a sensible arbiter of political arrangements or in fact of much else outside of purely personal conduct and even then it has no claims to a monopoly. The Buddha famously kept away from speculations about God. Perhaps he realized only too well that had he not done so then he would still be there today, engaged in a furious argument with absolutely no resolution in sight. He came up with a set of suggestions about how to live life well, including the notion that the universe is an ethical place (by virtue of karma, without reference to a deity since none is necessary) and left it at that. He was probably the most level-headed man in all of history.
BTW, has anyone come across the ideas of the philosopher Derek Parfit who died recently? There are a couple of videos on YouTube if anyone is interested in a taster. Whether one agrees with him or not, his ideas strike me as a useful place to start from when considering how to live, including how to live morally, in the twenty-first century.
-
Gosh - what a lot of sound and fury. I guess it's what you do in the absence of facts.
That’s all you got?
I think I have presented a sound proposition that one cannot get a general societal “ought” from the “is” of mere scientific observation and the resultant “facts-on-the-ground.” I’ve conceded that any given individual may “self generate” an “ought” from “somewhere” – but not from the mere brute facts, but as mere personal preference with nothing from science to support it.
I’ve supported my premise by quoting Professor Richard Dawkins, FRS FRSL, an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008. Professor Dawkins is a leading proponent of the materialist worldview. The quotes I’ve cited very clearly support the notion that within the materialist worldview there is no appeal to right, wrong, good, evil. There is just the “is” of the facts-on-the-ground.
As a response to my premise, and support from a leading proponent of materialism, all I receive is a quasi-ad hominem “meh?”
May I ask if you agree with Professor Dawkins' position? If so, will you then acknowledge that the positions you express in this thread are merely your individual personal preferences and should be taken as such? Or, if you disagree with Professor Dawkins' position, on what grounds do you do so?
Rand
-
That’s all you got?
That's all it takes.
I think I have presented a sound proposition that one cannot get a general societal “ought” from the “is” of mere scientific observation and the resultant “facts-on-the-ground.”
I don't think you've presented anything but a load of blether and hot air. Human beings are extraordinarily complex, and act in a way that is not susceptible to analysis in terms of simple consideration of an individual's superficial behaviour. Trying to undertake such analysis is a waste of time in my view, and ends up being a bunch of woolly philosophy. Amuse yourself with it if you wish, but don't confuse it with anything real.
-
Gosh - what a lot of sound and fury. I guess it's what you do in the absence of facts.
Actually, in reviewing this entire thread you are the one who has presented the fewest facts, arguments or cogent replies.
-
This is a logically untenable position. One which Sartre labeled cowardly. You can only have morals without God if you water down the meaning of the word 'moral'. Even that will not pass muster though.
But, you sound quite certain. Tell me, all of us, what basis there is for morality if not from a transcendental force. If you can do it it will be a historic moment. Sartre failed and so have far greater minds than him. But go ahead, we're all ears.
(I do not use the word religion for this. It is not the right word. Religion is a human institution and shares the same weaknesses with all other human institutions.)
Do you fail to see the irony of accusing me of defying logic when your position has to invoke a deity? Seems to me that your "moral" is hollow at best. Your moral is: what god deems moral, is moral. Circular argument anyone? If we are forced to discuss semantics I think this thread has run it's course. Alan was clear, I was clear. You are trying to build straw men.
-
Actually, in reviewing this entire thread you are the one who has presented the fewest facts, arguments or cogent replies.
I have certainly typed fewer words than some - whether that means that my contribution is less is another matter.
-
Some discussion... from snow in Spain to the holocaust... ???
Fortunately we have more knowledge about photography...
Maybe Kevin can redirect the Antartica trips to Spain next year.
-
I've been having similar thoughts for quite a while. Frankly, the only thing that amazes me about any of this is that we got here so fast. I never thought I would live long enough to see the drastic changes we've already seen, and as Monty Python might say, I'm not dead yet.
Heck, we may as well all go back to shooting analog and live in log cabins on farms to minimize our damage to the planet. Sometimes this doesn't sound so bad when all you know is the busy city life :-)
Or perhaps some balance that does make sense/"grandfathered" in digital cameras only :-)
-
I don't think you've presented anything but a load of blether and hot air.
So, may I assume that you consider Professor Dawkins' position, as part of what I've presented, part of this blether and hot air?
Human beings are extraordinarily complex, and act in a way that is not susceptible to analysis in terms of simple consideration of an individual's superficial behaviour.
This is an interesting conclusion. May I ask how you came to hold this view?
Rand
-
Heck, we may as well all go back to shooting analog and live in log cabins on farms to minimize our damage to the planet. Sometimes this doesn't sound so bad when all you know is the busy city life :-)
Or perhaps some balance that does make sense/"grandfathered" in digital cameras only :-)
I'm not sure, but the manufacture and use of digital cameras may not be as bad overall as the manufacture and use of film and all of the processing chemicals that go with it. A person could put a lot of film through a camera over its lifetime. Some of those processing chemicals were fairly nasty, especially the ones for color. And then there's print processing...
-
Regarding this issue, it might be instructive to go and read the essay my college biology teacher, Garret Hardin, published back in 1968, "The Tragedy of the Commons." http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~asmayer/rural_sustain/governance/Hardin%201968.pdf It's about six pages but easy reading and he covers the key issue of how to deal with a shared resource.
-
Okay! I'll try, but don't forget to nominate me for a Nobel Prize. ;D
Ray, thank you for your response and the beautiful pictures. But I don't think you have made a case for morality (as understood in English usage) in the absence of god (if "transcendent" doesn't work for you.) And if the word moral seems to ambiguous then we can just use the idea conveyed by the words should or ought.
The fact that behaviors are encoded in DNA or are a result of evolutionary psychology (pseudo-science) do not give them moral authority. How could they? Such characteristics are no more than impulses. And if there arose an impulse to kill our neighbors to enhance our own survivability would we call that a moral? Would we say "You should kill the competition to improve your survival odds"? Of course not. So in that respect you cannot rely of evolutionarily derived traits as morals. The other problem with this line of thinking is that so many things we consider to be de facto right and proper are counter to the survival of our own DNA. This sort of thing cannot be explained from an evolutionary standpoint. I'm talking about things like not stealing, giving to others, helping the sick and weak. Some might argue that these things are better for the herd but that argument is weak and full of holes. Herd survival has little to commend helping the weak and sick or sacrificing oneself to help a stranger.
Again, thanks for you response, but it just doesn't make an argument for moral authority.
-
The problem is that the orders from above clearly change markedly from culture to culture and from one historical era to another. There are four major world religions and a host of minor ones. Over the centuries the orders from above have sometimes been violent and damaging and at other times generally genial and peaceable but their adherents have all claimed at one time or another that they were the echt command. So which set of orders if any is the real deal? They can't all be, can they?
An excellent point. As you say, these things can be hard to sort out. But they don't really address the question at hand regarding a basis for morally binding beliefs. The reason is this: While religions, sects, factions, groups, peoples, nations, cults etc all disagree on many things there are very few if any that disagree on the very basic moral principles such as it is wrong to have sex with your child, or it is wrong to torture babies, or it is wrong to kill for no reason. These are obviously basic and generally agreed upon but the truth is that materialism alone cannot even provide a binding basis for these concepts and so far no one here (or elsewhere, by the way) have been able to make a logically consistent argument that it can. As Rand mentioned, even the great militant atheists like Dennet and Dawkins concede that materialism and specifically evolution provide any moral basis for anything whatsoever. Again, Sarte, Nietzsche and most other existentialists came up with the same conclusion.
And that's important because there seems to be a perception (in this thread) that some of us are making this point as deists. Yes, we agree with it, but it is the thoughtful and honest atheists who fleshed out this idea decades ago. And most of them were horrified by it. And they should be.
-
Do you fail to see the irony of accusing me of defying logic when your position has to invoke a deity?
There is no irony there at all. First, let me repeat what I said above: this concept is not mine. The concept of materialism being incapable of supporting moral authority was best expressed by Sartre, Camu and Nietzsche. More contemporarily it has been affirmed by Dawkins, Dennett and other members of the militant atheists sometimes known as the Four Horsemen of Atheism. Second, if you wish to discuss the logic for belief in God then you will need to put on your thinking cap and put on your big boy pants because I will be happy to take that discussion as far as you want to. So no, no irony whatsoever.
Seems to me that your "moral" is hollow at best. Your moral is: what god deems moral, is moral. Circular argument anyone?
Fine. Take any concept of god or transcendence out the discussion for whatever reason you wish. That does not change the question at hand. You contended, outright, that it is logically consistent to believe in binding moral authority from a strictly secular and materialist standpoint. So far you have not even tried. You have not offered a single argument or fact.
If we are forced to discuss semantics I think this thread has run it's course. Alan was clear, I was clear. You are trying to build straw men.
Now you are making excuses. The discussion and its terms have to be precise or they are pointless. If you are not up to that level of argument that is not anyone else's fault.
The ball is still in your court. But you know full well you cannot return it if Sartre or Dawkins can't.
And you thought the pill was easy to swallow.
-
Would we say "You should kill the competition to improve your survival odds"? Of course not. So in that respect you cannot rely of evolutionarily derived traits as morals. The other problem with this line of thinking is that so many things we consider to be de facto right and proper are counter to the survival of our own DNA. This sort of thing cannot be explained from an evolutionary standpoint. I'm talking about things like not stealing, giving to others, helping the sick and weak. Some might argue that these things are better for the herd but that argument is weak and full of holes. Herd survival has little to commend helping the weak and sick or sacrificing oneself to help a stranger.
Again, thanks for you response, but it just doesn't make an argument for moral authority.
George,
Isn't that what is basically said to all armies engaged in battle? (You not only should kill the competition, but if you don't you'll be in serious trouble.)
Our survival and evolutionary development have depended on the practice of such a 'moral authority' long before we had the brain power to develop a language to articulate such concepts.
All animals compete for resources, and fight or flee when predators appear. It used to be thought that mankind was the only animal that engaged in warfare, until someone observed a group of Chimpanzees walking in line through the forest, and followed them to see where they were going. Their destination was another region where a neighbouring group of Chimpanzees lived, which they viciously slaughtered.
The argument I'm presenting is, what some of us now imagine to be a transcendental moral authority, originating from on high, might in fact be no more than a sophisticated development of an ages-old fundamental awareness of the sorts of actions and behaviour that are necessary for our own survival as a group, or at least helpful for our survival as a group.
To continue with the example of the extinction of Neanderthal Man. That it was due to a failure to adapt to an increasingly cold climate is possibly the main reason, but probably not the only reason. It seems that Neanderthal Man lived in smaller and more isolated groups than Homo Sapiens did at the time, and they would have been at a disadvantage during any conflict with the larger Homo Sapiens groups who were probably more cooperative amongst themselves and better organized.
This gradual awareness and understanding, as language and thought processes developed, that cooperation within the group has a survival advantage, is probably the basis of the more recent moral commandments such as 'Love thy neighbour as thyself' and 'Love thine enemy', which one associates with Christianity.
Such moral concepts stretch back many thousands of years, probably before any written records were made. The original concept is often referred to as The Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. The phrasing changes according to different translations and different cultures, but the underlying meaning is the same in the many examples throughout history. The earliest written record, on Egyptian papyrus, goes back to 1650 BC. However, it's reasonable to presume that the basis of the moral concept of The Golden Rule, goes back much further than the earliest written record that has so far been unearthed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
What I'm suggesting is that the sort of cooperative behaviour that groups of animals seem to instinctively engage in, within their own group, as when ants build an ant hill consisting of a maize of tunnels, is the basis for the later articulation of such principles which we describe as morals.
Of course, in order to strengthen such principles, and make them more effective, the chieftains or rulers of human societies sometimes invoke the concept of an Almighty God whom they, as rulers, claim to have some communication with. ;)
Have I made a sound case? ;)
-
This whole discussion of morals and where they come from reminds me of the joke about Moses. So Moses comes down from the mountain with the tablets of commandments and the people ask him what news he has. So Moses tells them that he has good news and bad news. So the people ask him what the good news is and Moses says, "Well, I got Him down to 10."
And the people respond by asking, "So what's the bad news?"
"Well, adultery. It's still in."
-
Fine. Take any concept of god or transcendence out the discussion for whatever reason you wish. That does not change the question at hand. You contended, outright, that it is logically consistent to believe in binding moral authority from a strictly secular and materialist standpoint. So far you have not even tried. You have not offered a single argument or fact.
Whereas you have fallen into the trap of medicine men through the ages - can't understand something? must be a sky fairy!
-
There is no irony there at all. First, let me repeat what I said above: this concept is not mine. The concept of materialism being incapable of supporting moral authority was best expressed by Sartre, Camu and Nietzsche. More contemporarily it has been affirmed by Dawkins, Dennett and other members of the militant atheists sometimes known as the Four Horsemen of Atheism. Second, if you wish to discuss the logic for belief in God then you will need to put on your thinking cap and put on your big boy pants because I will be happy to take that discussion as far as you want to. So no, no irony whatsoever.
Fine. Take any concept of god or transcendence out the discussion for whatever reason you wish. That does not change the question at hand. You contended, outright, that it is logically consistent to believe in binding moral authority from a strictly secular and materialist standpoint. So far you have not even tried. You have not offered a single argument or fact.
Now you are making excuses. The discussion and its terms have to be precise or they are pointless. If you are not up to that level of argument that is not anyone else's fault.
The ball is still in your court. But you know full well you cannot return it if Sartre or Dawkins can't.
And you thought the pill was easy to swallow.
No. That is your straw man. What I said was there is no authority, no force, nothing binding. If we don't feel the need to preserve what we got there is nothing in science to persuade us differently. That is not a hard pill to swallow. That's just the way it is. Yet I feel it strongly, we ought to save the planet for future generations.
-
1...What I'm suggesting is that the sort of cooperative behaviour that groups of animals seem to instinctively engage in, within their own group, as when ants build an ant hill consisting of a maize of tunnels, is the basis for the later articulation of such principles which we describe as morals.
2...Have I made a sound case? ;)
Ray,
1. You are sewing sowing confusion; but the ants/termites are good farmers nonetheless.
2. No, you have not made a sound case.
;-)
Rob
-
An excellent point. As you say, these things can be hard to sort out. But they don't really address the question at hand regarding a basis for morally binding beliefs. The reason is this: While religions, sects, factions, groups, peoples, nations, cults etc all disagree on many things there are very few if any that disagree on the very basic moral principles such as it is wrong to have sex with your child, or it is wrong to torture babies, or it is wrong to kill for no reason. These are obviously basic and generally agreed upon but the truth is that materialism alone cannot even provide a binding basis for these concepts and so far no one here (or elsewhere, by the way) have been able to make a logically consistent argument that it can. As Rand mentioned, even the great militant atheists like Dennet and Dawkins concede that materialism and specifically evolution provide any moral basis for anything whatsoever. Again, Sarte, Nietzsche and most other existentialists came up with the same conclusion.
And that's important because there seems to be a perception (in this thread) that some of us are making this point as deists. Yes, we agree with it, but it is the thoughtful and honest atheists who fleshed out this idea decades ago. And most of them were horrified by it. And they should be.
I have no interest in debating this least of all when umpired by rather tired old Aunt Sally figures like Professor Dawkins. The argument has been endlessly rehearsed in a thousand books and lectures, so we can all read a few and make up our own mind. In my view, it is a waste of time trying to "prove" something which cannot in fact be proven because it depends on an unprovable assertion involving the supernatural. One can believe it, not a problem if that's what someone wants, but give up trying to prove it. It leads nowhere and changes nothing. Morality can be and has been perfectly well explained as the outcome of how human beings relate to each other and form societies, without reference to anything else at all. Agree with that or believe something else. Why should anyone else care? On that basis, there really isn't anything here to debate.
I would suggest that clinging to intellectual positions out of a thirst to "prove"something is no more sensible than clinging to anything else, though I will say that when people have a medical problem they see a doctor who knows what he is doing, not a clergyman. Perhaps there is a lesson here when it comes to stewardship of the planet, to get back to the point of the thread? Here endeth the discussion so far as I am concerned.
-
What I said was there is no authority, no force, nothing binding.
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. So you would agree then, from a secular, materialistic standpoint, there is no binding morality? No one can tell anyone else what they should or should not do? Everything is okay? All is permitted?
If so, then you are logically consistent in your belief and you would, therefore, have nothing to say about or to the person who hates polar bears, loves air pollution, is greedy and wants a warm and barren planet. You would have to agree that his beliefs, his private 'morality,' are just as valid as yours even if he has no intellectual basis for holding them.
Good.
Yet I feel it strongly, we ought to save the planet for future generations.
That's commendable but no more relevant than the feelings of a an extreme right wing robber baron hell bent on destroying the planet for his own personal gain. They are both, by your materialistic philosophy, equally valid and you have no basis for saying he is somehow wrong.
-
That's democracy for ya'.
-
That's democracy for ya'.
Yep. Anything goes. Everything is okay. What more would anyone want?
-
Morality can be and has been perfectly well explained as the outcome of how human beings relate to each other and form societies, without reference to anything else at all. Agree with that or believe something else. Why should anyone else care? On that basis, there really isn't anything here to debate.
Amen!
-
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. So you would agree then, from a secular, materialistic standpoint, there is no binding morality? No one can tell anyone else what they should or should not do? Everything is okay? All is permitted?
If so, then you are logically consistent in your belief and you would, therefore, have nothing to say about or to the person who hates polar bears, loves air pollution, is greedy and wants a warm and barren planet. You would have to agree that his beliefs, his private 'morality,' are just as valid as yours even if he has no intellectual basis for holding them.
Good.
That's commendable but no more relevant than the feelings of a an extreme right wing robber baron hell bent on destroying the planet for his own personal gain. They are both, by your materialistic philosophy, equally valid and you have no basis for saying he is somehow wrong.
I sincerely apologize for involving myself in this again. I said before that morality is a human construct. There is no "binding" morality from on high or anywhere else. An extreme right wing robber baron hell bent on destroying the planet for his own personal gain is operating within his own set of morals. Large numbers of people feel environmental stewardship is far less important than wealth. They may not be "hell bent on destroying the planet" but that's less important than making lots of money. America just elected a government packed with such people so something close to half the population has moral beliefs that are similar to varying degrees. There are also lots of people who think otherwise. We argue about it and try to convince others to adopt our own "morals" but it seldom works. When it does it is often because the other person is convinced the alternative morals are personally beneficial. I see no evidence of anything "binding" anyone to any standard of conduct except human-made laws that bind by virtue of penalties.
If there was a binding morality we would be bound, as you previously said, to be good stewards of the planet. Yet we are not. That "experiment" shows the theory is incorrect.
-
I sincerely apologize for involving myself in this again. I said before that morality is a human construct. There is no "binding" morality from on high or anywhere else.
From a materialist standpoint that is absolutely correct.
I see no evidence of anything "binding" anyone to any standard of conduct except human-made laws that bind by virtue of penalties.
Again, this is absolutely correct. This is also the doctrine, perfectly stated, of might makes right. By this same standard there is no logical consistency in saying Hitler was wrong for incinerating homosexuals or that the antebellum US was wrong for codifying chattel slavery. You cannot even say that they should not have done these things. Genocide and slavery in both of these cases where norms of the culture at the time and fully supported by the law and the leaders. That would be a perfect definition of your "human construct" definition of morality. By your definition, slavery was 'moral'. If you can live with that reality, and it IS the reality of materialism then you are an honest, thoughtful, logically consistent materialist. But as soon as you suggest that someone else ought to do something then you are no longer logically consistent. As soon as you suggest that slavery is always wrong and always to be proscribed you are no longer being logically consistent. The destructive and avaricious, the hateful and the violent are as correct and proper in their attitudes and actions as the environmentalist or the civil rights advocate.
Likewise, if you say I should protect the planet, you are logically inconsistent. If you say I must protect the planet and make me do so at the threat of violence (the only real teeth of any law) then might-makes-right is your belief structure.
I'm glad you understand this. I'm sad that it seems okay to you or anyone else because by this standard neither evil or good exist.
If there was a binding morality we would be bound, as you previously said, to be good stewards of the planet. Yet we are not. That "experiment" shows the theory is incorrect.
That statement does not follow logically and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Even the existence of a morally binding and transcendent moral code does not mean that it is followed. That does not impune the moral in any way. It simply proves that evil exists.
-
From a materialist standpoint that is absolutely correct.
From another standpoint - be nice cos the sky fairy says so!!!
More seriously - your problem is that you don't know why people do what they do. No shame in that - ask an ant why they spend their lives carrying crumbs to the nest and they won't know either, but they do it, and from an exterior vantage point it appears to be their moral duty. Humans are more complex than ants, so your chances of working out the details of what motivates them is slim. Cover up your failure with long winded tomes on morality if you wish, but don't expect to convince anyone.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jan/25/atheists-youre-not-as-rational-as-you-think-video
-
From a materialist standpoint that is absolutely correct.
Again, this is absolutely correct. This is also the doctrine, perfectly stated, of might makes right. By this same standard there is no logical consistency in saying Hitler was wrong for incinerating homosexuals or that the antebellum US was wrong for codifying chattel slavery. You cannot even say that they should not have done these things. Genocide and slavery in both of these cases where norms of the culture at the time and fully supported by the law and the leaders. That would be a perfect definition of your "human construct" definition of morality. By your definition, slavery was 'moral'. If you can live with that reality, and it IS the reality of materialism then you are an honest, thoughtful, logically consistent materialist. But as soon as you suggest that someone else ought to do something then you are no longer logically consistent. As soon as you suggest that slavery is always wrong and always to be proscribed you are no longer being logically consistent. The destructive and avaricious, the hateful and the violent are as correct and proper in their attitudes and actions as the environmentalist or the civil rights advocate.
Likewise, if you say I should protect the planet, you are logically inconsistent. If you say I must protect the planet and make me do so at the threat of violence (the only real teeth of any law) then might-makes-right is your belief structure.
I'm glad you understand this. I'm sad that it seems okay to you or anyone else because by this standard neither evil or good exist.
That statement does not follow logically and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Even the existence of a morally binding and transcendent moral code does not mean that it is followed. That does not impune the moral in any way. It simply proves that evil exists.
Obviously, according to Hitler's moral code Hitler was not wrong. Those in his regime obviously had moral codes that allowed them to participate in his plans. Many others thought at least some aspects of Hitler's moral code were abhorrent and they are the only reason he did not end up dominating the world. It's pretty simple. Each of us wants our own morals to prevail. That is why nearly every argument of principal exists. Sometimes it rises to the level of war and violence and sometimes it is just a friendly disagreement.
By my definition and that of a large consensus of humanity, slavery is not moral. By the definition of those who fought to keep it around it obviously was moral. There is nothing illogical about that, and nothing that makes it less terrible in my eyes or those who share my opinion of it. Morality is relative to the person, and there is often a large consensus of what is moral, as in the case of murder, robbery, etc. When that happens people tend to make laws with penalties to enforce their morals with penalties for violating them. Good and evil exist relative to each person and relative to the consensus of society. If you rob someone and get caught you go to jail. If a nation state performs what most of us think are sufficiently egregious acts there is a war. Regardless of my belief structure or yours, that is how the world works, and how it has always worked.
If I say you should protect the planet I'm acting according to my own beliefs, consistent with everything I've described. "Should" is based on what I think is right. It is relative to me. Ask the CEO of Exxon and you'll get a different "should". I don't see anything illogical or inconsistent in that. You will, but I don't care enough to argue my point forever, and why we think what we think has no effect on anything. What we think does.
-
From another standpoint - be nice cos the sky fairy says so!!!
You know, I've tried to be civil and I've tried to ignore you but the bottom line is that everything you have posted in this thread shows you to be belligerent, offensive and hateful. You do not address any aspects of logical discourse with anything approaching thoughtfulness. And any time someone utterly defeats your short baseless claims all you can do is complain about how many sentences it took or how big the words were.
More seriously - your problem is that you don't know why people do what they do.
What does that even mean? Do YOU know why people do what they do?
Humans are more complex than ants, so your chances of working out the details of what motivates them is slim.
I never once claimed to know what motivates people. So now you're just making things up.
Cover up your failure with long winded tomes on morality if you wish, but don't expect to convince anyone.
This will probably get this thread closed, removed or both. It might even get me banned, but it needs to be said and I suspect people on both sides of this discussion are thinking it too and will agree. But you are clearly an idiot.
My apologies to the site owners and moderators.
-
Obviously, according to Hitler's moral code Hitler was not wrong. Those in his regime obviously had moral codes that allowed them to participate in his plans. Many others thought at least some aspects of Hitler's moral code were abhorrent and they are the only reason he did not end up dominating the world. It's pretty simple. Each of us wants our own morals to prevail. That is why nearly every argument of principal exists. Sometimes it rises to the level of war and violence and sometimes it is just a friendly disagreement.
What you have said here, once again, is nothing more that might-makes-right. Which again, is the proper conclusion of materialism. I think you're getting the picture now.
By my definition and that of a large consensus of humanity, slavery is not moral.
Logically inconsistent. If there is no morality and if morals are self determined by groups and individuals then possessing another human being has no moral parameters. Either some people like it or some people don't. You've made this statement yourself.
BMorality is relative to the person, and there is often a large consensus of what is moral, as in the case of murder, robbery, etc. When that happens people tend to make laws with penalties to enforce their morals
Yes. Again. Might makes right. Exxon and its government buddies is strong and powerful. It corrupts the planet. By your definition there is NOTHING wrong with that. It is just something you don't like. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Good and evil exist relative to each person and relative to the consensus of society. If you rob someone and get caught you go to jail. If a nation state performs what most of us think are sufficiently egregious acts there is a war. Regardless of my belief structure or yours, that is how the world works, and how it has always worked.
Good. But that does not give you or anyone else the logical consistency to say that it is wrong for people to do things you don't like. All you can do is apply force to stop them. Again, might-makes-right. Survival of the fittest. Its all just a struggle of strength and popular consent.
"Should" is based on what I think is right. It is relative to me.
Correct. In the materialist view. The whole point is that in that view "should" is utterly meaningless. It is a whim, an impulse an opinion. Nothing more. Unless you back it up with violence. And yes, that pretty much describes the world as we know it. But why think that is good? Because after all, we are destroying the planet. And by your definitions that is not evil, it is not wrong, it is just something you don't agree with and you do not have sufficient force to do anything about it.
Ask the CEO of Exxon and you'll get a different "should".
That is exactly why your "should" has no meaning. It is its own oxymoron. There is no such thing as a relative "should". It is a unicorn.
As I've said before, the only thing worse than relativizing morals is believing there is no cost in doing so. That is the very definition of cowardice. And it is the very definition of hypocrisy to claim that it is morally okay for anyone to do whatever they can get away with and then suggest that the shouldn't because you don't like it.
-
Good and evil exist relative to each person and relative to the consensus of society. If you rob someone and get caught you go to jail. If a nation state performs what most of us think are sufficiently egregious acts there is a war. Regardless of my belief structure or yours, that is how the world works, and how it has always worked.
I appreciate the clarity of your statement here. This is authentic relativism. So, nothing is absolute in this view. It has logical consistency. But, I'm not sure it is coherent.
Let me posit this. Can you imagine a context in which it is permissible to torture babies just for the fun of it? I know this may seem absurd to even ask. But it is precisely "because" it will strike you as absurd that I will make an appeal to the concept of "torturing babies merely and only for the fun of it" poses a question that begs for a transcendent moral imperative that IS NOT merely societal consensus. Even societies that believed in child sacrifice 'by consensus' did so for some reason of efficacy. Doing something abhorrent "merely for the fun of it" puts it in another category altogether. Does it seem so to you? If not, why not?
Rand
-
From a materialist standpoint that is absolutely correct.
Again, this is absolutely correct. This is also the doctrine, perfectly stated, of might makes right. By this same standard there is no logical consistency in saying Hitler was wrong for incinerating homosexuals or that the antebellum US was wrong for codifying chattel slavery. You cannot even say that they should not have done these things. Genocide and slavery in both of these cases where norms of the culture at the time and fully supported by the law and the leaders. That would be a perfect definition of your "human construct" definition of morality. By your definition, slavery was 'moral'. If you can live with that reality, and it IS the reality of materialism then you are an honest, thoughtful, logically consistent materialist. But as soon as you suggest that someone else ought to do something then you are no longer logically consistent. As soon as you suggest that slavery is always wrong and always to be proscribed you are no longer being logically consistent. The destructive and avaricious, the hateful and the violent are as correct and proper in their attitudes and actions as the environmentalist or the civil rights advocate.
Likewise, if you say I should protect the planet, you are logically inconsistent. If you say I must protect the planet and make me do so at the threat of violence (the only real teeth of any law) then might-makes-right is your belief structure.
I'm glad you understand this. I'm sad that it seems okay to you or anyone else because by this standard neither evil or good exist.
That statement does not follow logically and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Even the existence of a morally binding and transcendent moral code does not mean that it is followed. That does not impune the moral in any way. It simply proves that evil exists.
Perhaps the problem with such an argument is the failure to understand at a fundamental level the definition of what is wrong. How do we ultimately determine what is wrong, or what is right?
I would suggest that what is right, and therefore moral, is any set of behaviours and attitudes that results in an over all benefit to a particular species, allowing it to proliferate and prosper, and that what is wrong, and therefore immoral, is any set of attitudes and behaviour patterns that have the opposite effect of diminishing the survival potential of a species, or subspecies, or nation or group.
Since the effects of our actions are very complex and have ramifications many years later, those actions that are in fact wrong and immoral at the present time are not always perceived and understood to be wrong because of the attraction of the immediate benefits that might flow to the group, nation or individuals who engage in the wrong and immoral conduct.
Devising a set of moral codes, such as the Ten Commandments, is a practical attempt by the 'presumably wiser' leaders of a society at the time, to prevent people from unwittingly engaging in behaviour which those wise leaders, or advisors, think might have harmful consequences for themselves and their society at some time in the future.
Unfortunately, what is right or wrong, and moral or immoral, is often dependent upon the circumstances of the times. Circumstances are always changing. Those societies that cling on to moral codes that have become out-dated and irrelevant in a modern context, or any sudden change in circumstances, tend to suffer the consequences.
I have no problem with the basic concept of a change in paradigm from the use of fossil fuels to other more sustainable and potentially cleaner forms of energy. Eventually, we will all benefit, provided those alternative energy sources such as solar power are potentially more efficient than gas and coal, after taking all the additional costs of adequate emission controls for fossil fuels into consideration, and the external costs of the health consequences of the burning of fossil fuels in the absence of adequate emission controls, and so on.
The problems as I see them relate to the religious aspects associated with the dangers of CO2. The so-called 'consensus of scientific opinion' on the issue seems to have taken on the role of an Almighty God, in the minds of the scientific illiterates.
Those who have a good understanding of the scientific methodology and the problems of uncertainty whenever an issue is complex with countless variables, elements of chaos, and long time-scales involved before any effect can be observed, understand that any certainty on such issues is likely to be a fabrication.
The danger of blindly following the recommendations of these new gods is that we might falsely imagine that spending huge sums of money on renewable energy in order to reduce CO2 levels, will have certain beneficial effects, such as reducing the intensity of floods and storms, and therefore, as a consequence, we might not spend sufficient resources on protecting ourselves from the recurrence of natural, extreme weather events that are not related to human emissions of CO2.
Here's an example of such an extreme weather event that one cannot attribute to rising CO2 levels, as reported by Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atmospheric-rivers-california-megaflood-lessons-from-forgotten-catastrophe/
"A 43-day storm that began in December 1861 put central and southern California underwater for up to six months, and it could happen again.
Geologic evidence shows that truly massive floods, caused by rainfall alone, have occurred in California every 100 to 200 years. Such floods are likely caused by atmospheric rivers: narrow bands of water vapor about a mile above the ocean that extend for thousands of kilometers.
In 1861, farmers and ranchers were praying for rain after two exceptionally dry decades. In December their prayers were answered with a vengeance, as a series of monstrous Pacific storms slammed—one after another—into the West coast of North America, from Mexico to Canada. The storms produced the most violent flooding residents had ever seen, before or since."
Have I made a good case for my pragmatism, George? ;D
-
Perhaps the problem with such an argument is the failure to understand at a fundamental level the definition of what is wrong. How do we ultimately determine what is wrong, or what is right?
That IS in fact the heart of the matter.
I would suggest that what is right, and therefore moral, is any set of behaviours and attitudes that results in an over all benefit to a particular species, allowing it to proliferate and prosper, and that what is wrong, and therefore immoral, is any set of attitudes and behaviour patterns that have the opposite effect of diminishing the survival potential of a species, or subspecies, or nation or group.
That does not work. Hitler thought that genocide would lead to a better world for what he considered his people. His DNA. The southern plantation culture deeply believe the a leisure culture was far superior to all others and that the way to achieve that was to make someone else do the work.
Genocide was wrong in 1940. Slavery was wrong in 1860. They were both always wrong and always will be wrong IF you have a moral basis for saying so. If you do not, then they might have been 'right' then or the could be 'right' in the future since everything was different back then and will be different later....if you relativize morals. Which you have, very explicitly, as I quote below:
Unfortunately, what is right or wrong, and moral or immoral, is often dependent upon the circumstances of the times. Circumstances are always changing. Those societies that cling on to moral codes that have become out-dated and irrelevant in a modern context, or any sudden change in circumstances, tend to suffer the consequences.
The problems as I see them relate to the religious aspects associated with the dangers of CO2. The so-called 'consensus of scientific opinion' on the issue seems to have taken on the role of an Almighty God, in the minds of the scientific illiterates.
Quite. If all the Freudian and sociological excuses for god are true (we created god because we needed him) then something has to replace him. Science has replaced him. Not as a tool of investigation and innovation but as the monolith that cannot be questioned. It is no accident that Americans believe anything preceded by the words "scientists say" and will buy anything verified by "scientific research".
Those who have a good understanding of the scientific methodology and the problems of uncertainty whenever an issue is complex with countless variables, elements of chaos, and long time-scales involved before any effect can be observed, understand that any certainty on such issues is likely to be a fabrication.
In the context of global warming it is that 'certainty' you mention that has been foisted upon the gullible and those who would use it for ideological purposes. The science may not be bad, the way we interpret and propagandize the results that is so specious.
Have I made a good case for my pragmatism, George? ;D
I'm going to have to think about it for a while.
-
You know, I've tried to be civil and I've tried to ignore you but the bottom line is that everything you have posted in this thread shows you to be belligerent, offensive and hateful.
Just as long as I'm not pompous, condescending and boring.
You do not address any aspects of logical discourse with anything approaching thoughtfulness. And any time someone utterly defeats your short baseless claims all you can do is complain about how many sentences it took or how big the words were.
You seem to have mixed up "thoughtfulness" with "typing".
What does that even mean? Do YOU know why people do what they do?
Nope - but that's fine. There are lots of things I don't know, and that's fine too. I don't know why may car didn't start this morning, but in both cases I have an idea where to start looking for the answer, and I don't put the blame on a supernatural being.
I never once claimed to know what motivates people. So now you're just making things up.
Aah - my mistake - I had imagined that what you term "morality" was a thing that motivated people to do the "right thing". You'd need to explain better what the point of "morality" is in order to make your case. Or on second thoughts, please don't bother.
This will probably get this thread closed, removed or both. It might even get me banned, but it needs to be said and I suspect people on both sides of this discussion are thinking it too and will agree. But you are clearly an idiot.
At last you may well be right - I usually keep the curtains closed and don't answer the door when the folks with leaflets come knocking. I've no idea why I bothered to engage you here.
-
The problems as I see them relate to the religious aspects associated with the dangers of CO2. The so-called 'consensus of scientific opinion' on the issue seems to have taken on the role of an Almighty God, in the minds of the scientific illiterates.
Those who have a good understanding of the scientific methodology and the problems of uncertainty whenever an issue is complex with countless variables, elements of chaos, and long time-scales involved before any effect can be observed, understand that any certainty on such issues is likely to be a fabrication.
The consensus of scientific opinion is simply that - our best guess as to what are the likely consequences of a certain set of actions. Nobody with any sense claims to know for certain if the predictions are correct, but they are better than any other predictions. Believing otherwise on the basis of little or no evidence is a lot more like religion than is climate change science.
The danger of blindly following the recommendations of these new gods is that we might falsely imagine that spending huge sums of money on renewable energy in order to reduce CO2 levels, will have certain beneficial effects, such as reducing the intensity of floods and storms, and therefore, as a consequence, we might not spend sufficient resources on protecting ourselves from the recurrence of natural, extreme weather events that are not related to human emissions of CO2.
That is a danger. The alternative danger is ignoring what the evidence strongly suggests to us and causing cataclysmic changes to our planet. Is that a difficult choice?
-
Genocide was wrong in 1940. Slavery was wrong in 1860. They were both always wrong and always will be wrong IF you have a moral basis for saying so.
I see. How about abortion? Or homosexuality?? Are they wrong? Or not??
-
George,
You are saying that I cannot logically determine whether something is wrong or right unless it is based on a "transcendent moral code" that cannot be further explained or proven. You say this transcendent moral code is "binding" yet people pick and choose which parts of it to follow. That's interesting use of the word "binding". It's also interesting that the results of that picking and choosing are about the same as the results of people simply following their own and consensus moral codes. Take a look at history and current events. All of the atrocities you have mentioned are actually evidence against what you are trying to prove. You explain them away as people making mistakes.
"Should" has meaning only relative to a person's own moral code. It is morally okay for someone to do whatever they can get away with only relative to the person doing it. If it was not somehow okay with them they would not do it so that "okayness", relative to themselves, is obvious. If I say they are wrong based on my own and different moral code I am a coward. If you say they are wrong but claim it is based on a moral code with a source that you cannot prove or explain, you are a knight in shining armor. That's convenient. Deities and transcendental forces are themselves only human constructs devised so people can make sense of things they cannot explain. At some point in history solar eclipses were attributed to them, and the people who believed that had just as much conviction as you do.
"Because after all, we are destroying the planet. And by your definitions that is not evil, it is not wrong, it is just something you don't agree with and you do not have sufficient force to do anything about it.": Again, according to my own moral code it is evil and wrong. I do not ask a ghost to define what is evil and wrong. According to those doing the deeds it is obviously not evil or wrong. Otherwise you are exactly correct. We are destroying the planet, there is no evidence that we will ever stop, and I can do nothing about it because I do not have sufficient force. Note that "force" can have many forms, ranging from political influence to money to violence.
Once upon a time I lobbied officials in local and federal government on behalf of many environmental issues, helped establish a local nature preserve that was slated to become a marina and housing development, and otherwise tried very hard to accomplish things I regard as good. In those days quite a few people sincerely believed that doing what I regard morally good was morally bad. We were both "right" according to our own beliefs. I have no idea what the deities or transcendental forces thought.
The unfortunate reality is that everything done by everyone around the world to preserve our environment are vastly insufficient. Together all of those people do not have enough "force" to accomplish their goals. Might always prevails. Believing something is immoral based on your own thoughts or based on some rules handed down on stone tablets changes nothing. Whether we disagree or agree here has no effect on anything beyond our own thoughts.
-
Morality comes from God not man. Trying to ascribe a moral rule to how man should handle the effects of climate control is fraught with man's own prejudices. We probably should keep God out of it. It may come down to tradeoffs of results that man must debate on his own.
-
I see. How about abortion? Or homosexuality?? Are they wrong? Or not??
If you are a materialist you cannot say one way or the other. You also have no logical basis for condemning anyone else for how they feel about such topics. Someone saying abortion is wrong is no different, for the logically consistent materialist, than someone who says it isn't. Its just their opinion, nothing less, nothing more.
But here is a better question: Do you think it is wrong for someone to condemn homosexuality as wrong? If so, on what basis. If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine. Everything. The fact that you disagree is immaterial.
-
Frankly, thoughts on climate change are really not a lot to do with faith in a god.
I have faith in God, but that is not a god as presented by any religion known to me; my concept is of a power that instigated the beginning of everything. For the different worlds as we know them to be, within the bounds of our present knowledge levels, there has to have been something that put in place all of the materials upon which are based the fancy theories about ignited gasses, massive vacuums or unimaginable densities of matter etc. etc. However far back we manage to trawl through time, the inevitable conclusion has to be that it had a beginning. The source of that beginning is the mystery that some think of as God. No use just saying it was all about gasses, those had to come from somewhere.
Morality is indeed (IMO) a construct or development within the framework of the human mind; it may or may not have divine origins, but it is surely sourced upon rules that encourage a harmonious survival, at the very least. There is nothing harmonious about the philososphy of ISIS, is there, and only through the perversion of a reasonable faith can such ideals be thought benign, hence one could suggest that morality in such beliefs is totally lacking. It is not my intention to criticise any person's faith, but I believe that a common sense of morality is based on humanist as well as religious beliefs; I can't see morality arising from evil, of which there is more than enough all around us, but I can see immorality arise from such a source.
But putting in place any measures that we can that will not add to the pollution we produce is a good thing. That it may or may not be capable of changing the course of climate change is not the point: the point is that it represents humanity doing its level best to reduce its own contribution towards disaster. Helping us survive a few thousand years longer is not a bad thing, is it? Doing less is tantamount to saying oh well, I'm gonna die anyhow so why take care to avoid the busses when I cross the street?
You wouldn't think like that, would you? Unless you had a death wish.
Rob
-
George,
You are saying that I cannot logically determine whether something is wrong or right unless it is based on a "transcendent moral code" that cannot be further explained or proven.
Correct.
You say this transcendent moral code is "binding" yet people pick and choose which parts of it to follow. That's interesting use of the word "binding".
You are correct. I do not use it in the sense that a moral cannot be broken. I use it in the sense that it is absolute. From a transcendent standpoint there can be no debate that it is wrong to torture a baby for fun. It is absolute. For the relativist and/or materialist this cannot be claimed. And those of us who believe in a transcendent moral code the word binding has another sense. If you break the law there are consequences.
It's also interesting that the results of that picking and choosing are about the same as the results of people simply following their own and consensus moral codes. Take a look at history and current events. All of the atrocities you have mentioned are actually evidence against what you are trying to prove. You explain them away as people making mistakes.
No inconsistency at all. I explain them as evil. Sin if you will. The materialist has to observe the same world situation but cannot say it is sin or evil. Its just people doing what is right for them.
"Should" has meaning only relative to a person's own moral code. It is morally okay for someone to do whatever they can get away with only relative to the person doing it. If it was not somehow okay with them they would not do it so that "okayness", relative to themselves, is obvious.
Right. But again, that us of the word 'should' is illogical. It is nonsense. It is like saying a 'square circle'.
If I say they are wrong based on my own and different moral code I am a coward. If you say they are wrong but claim it is based on a moral code with a source that you cannot prove or explain, you are a knight in shining armor.
Not at all. I am simply being logically consistent. A materialist who condemns is being logically inconsistent. We each have to determine how important that is to us. Most people blow it off but don't think about it. Plato said the un-examined life was not worth living.
That's convenient. Deities and transcendental forces are themselves only human constructs devised so people can make sense of things they cannot explain.
Again, this is a Freudian construct, co-opted by evolutionary psychology theorists. This approach to understanding deism was debunked decades ago. I've been told that I type too many words, but I'd be glad to engage this flawed theory if you wish. But as it stands it is merely one explanation. It establishes no logical cause and effect. I could have wild supernatural theories about gravity that could be explained away by my need to understand it. But that does not mean gravity is not real.
At some point in history solar eclipses were attributed to them, and the people who believed that had just as much conviction as you do.
I have nowhere in this discussion argued for the existence of god. I have only discussed the consequences of there not being one. Very different things.
Again, according to my own moral code it is evil and wrong.
Sure. But your moral code only applies to you unless you apply it to someone else by force.
I do not ask a ghost to define what is evil and wrong.
I'm not easily offended by such comments but you must know that it is very insulting. And I think people feel free to make such disparaging remarks because they have convinced themselves that somehow modern man has disproved the existence of god. Again, another whole conversation, but there is no incontrovertible proof from science, math or philosophy that has buried the existence of god. I can say, with the full weight or reason and logic that there is no evidence that proves that it is irrational to believe in a deity. I'm willing to engage in that discussion at any time. And for the reord, I did not bring it up, you did. ;)
The unfortunate reality is that everything done by everyone around the world to preserve our environment are vastly insufficient. Together all of those people do not have enough "force" to accomplish their goals. Might always prevails. Believing something is immoral based on your own thoughts or based on some rules handed down on stone tablets changes nothing. Whether we disagree or agree here has no effect on anything beyond our own thoughts.
That is the materialist view. Again, all I ask is that people consider that, like all beliefs and ideas, it has consequences that are terrifying. To think this untrue is a form of ignorance.
-
If you are a materialist you cannot say one way or the other. You also have no logical basis for condemning anyone else for how they feel about such topics. Someone saying abortion is wrong is no different, for the logically consistent materialist, than someone who says it isn't. Its just their opinion, nothing less, nothing more.
But here is a better question: Do you think it is wrong for someone to condemn homosexuality as wrong? If so, on what basis. If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine. Everything. The fact that you disagree is immaterial.
Why not just answer the question instead of waffling?
-
I appreciate the clarity of your statement here. This is authentic relativism. So, nothing is absolute in this view. It has logical consistency. But, I'm not sure it is coherent.
Let me posit this. Can you imagine a context in which it is permissible to torture babies just for the fun of it? I know this may seem absurd to even ask. But it is precisely "because" it will strike you as absurd that I will make an appeal to the concept of "torturing babies merely and only for the fun of it" poses a question that begs for a transcendent moral imperative that IS NOT merely societal consensus. Even societies that believed in child sacrifice 'by consensus' did so for some reason of efficacy. Doing something abhorrent "merely for the fun of it" puts it in another category altogether. Does it seem so to you? If not, why not?
Rand
Well. You could ask the folk who voted for Trump knowing he is in favour of torturing people and knowing that such torture serves no purpose other than providing some sort of satisfaction.
-
Why not just answer the question instead of waffling?
Excellent point. And a perfect example of the hypocrisy of your position. You want to know if I think certain things are right or wrong even while your materialist viewpoint says nothing is right or wrong.
Waffling? No. I'm not required to answer to your inquisitions. I'm not the one asking you to believe something. I'm only pointing out that your belief structure is logically inconsistent. I have not asked you to change it.
But I will answer your question in a way. Do I believe some things are morally wrong? Yes. Do I believe some things are morally right? Yes.
-
Excellent point. And a perfect example of the hypocrisy of your position. You want to know if I think certain things are right or wrong even while your materialist viewpoint says nothing is right or wrong.
Not remotely correct. The question was rhetorical as your views on those issues are in fact of less than zero interest to me. More interesting is your continued refusal to answer, which is quite telling.
-
I'm not easily offended by such comments but you must know that it is very insulting. And I think people feel free to make such disparaging remarks because they have convinced themselves that somehow modern man has disproved the existence of god. Again, another whole conversation, but there is no incontrovertible proof from science, math or philosophy that has buried the existence of god. I can say, with the full weight or reason and logic that there is no evidence that proves that it is irrational to believe in a deity. I'm willing to engage in that discussion at any time. And for the reord, I did not bring it up, you did. ;)
You are right and I was wrong to say that as I did. I extend my apologies. I have long been aware the the existence of a god cannot be proven true or false. I actually do not dislike you for believing as you do though I was a little irritated by both this conversation and a project I'm working on when I typed my comments. Being simultaneously cranky and careless was totally my fault, but no true malice was intended.
...
But putting in place any measures that we can that will not add to the pollution we produce is a good thing. That it may or may not be capable of changing the course of climate change is not the point: the point is that it represents humanity doing its level best to reduce its own contribution towards disaster. Helping us survive a few thousand years longer is not a bad thing, is it? Doing less is tantamount to saying oh well, I'm gonna die anyhow so why take care to avoid the busses when I cross the street?
You wouldn't think like that, would you? Unless you had a death wish.
Rob
I agree that any measures we implement to reduce pollution are a good thing. I do not believe that "...humanity doing its level best to reduce its own contribution towards disaster". I think a fraction of humanity is and a far bigger fraction is not, or is doing the opposite. Anything that is done to help us survive longer is a good thing, but I'm not sure that will be "a few thousand years". The sad part is that humanity will probably start to take these issues seriously only when human survival is threatened on a large scale. If that catastrophe is averted it will be quite a lonely place, since most other living things will perish first. I have no death wish but I'm glad I'm not a lot younger. I still try to minimize the damage I do but I'm no longer willing to spend large parts of my life on bigger efforts, most of which fail.
-
Not remotely correct. The question was rhetorical as your views on those issues are in fact of less than zero interest to me. More interesting is your continued refusal to answer, which is quite telling.
I'm not obligated to answer your questions about specific morals and it has no bearing on the conversation. The fact that you ask me a question on my views and then tell me you have zero interest in my views and then beat me up for not answering is the most telling thing so far. You don't seem to be able to string together any sort of logical response to any of this.
-
You are right and I was wrong to say that as I did. I extend my apologies. I have long been aware the the existence of a god cannot be proven true or false. I actually do not dislike you for believing as you do though I was a little irritated by both this conversation and a project I'm working on when I typed my comments. Being simultaneously cranky and careless was totally my fault, but no true malice was intended.
This is the reason I enjoy these discussions here at LuLa. We can disagree. We can even shoot a few barbs and drop a few insults without wanting to kill each other even when we are in complete disagreement. With a few notable exceptions....the level of intelligence and civility here at LuLa makes these sorts of discussions possible whereas most sites do not allow them.
The tone of my responses are often shaped by the mood I'm in and that is not always good. I need to be aware of that before I hit the 'post' button.
-
Frankly, thoughts on climate change are really not a lot to do with faith in a god.
For you? For me it does. I'm probably going to get ridiculed here, won't be the first time, but I believe that God revealed himself in the holy scriptures as presented in what most of us know as the Bible. I also believe there is repeated and consistent Biblical president for being good stewards of creation. Faith in those concepts informs my views on the environment and how we treat it. Not pushing this on anyone else, just saying.
I have faith in God, but that is not a god as presented by any religion known to me; my concept is of a power that instigated the beginning of everything. For the different worlds as we know them to be, within the bounds of our present knowledge levels, there has to have been something that put in place all of the materials upon which are based the fancy theories about ignited gasses, massive vacuums or unimaginable densities of matter etc. etc. However far back we manage to trawl through time, the inevitable conclusion has to be that it had a beginning. The source of that beginning is the mystery that some think of as God. No use just saying it was all about gasses, those had to come from somewhere.
This is pretty much the basis for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It goes like this:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
The extension of this argument is that anything that could create the universe from nothing has to be beyond the space-time universe, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and unimaginably powerful.
In that description most people see a deity. Which sounds like what Rob is saying. It is hard to argue against.
But putting in place any measures that we can that will not add to the pollution we produce is a good thing.
Agreed. Unless they hurt someone else. Right? These are tough things to sort through. DDT was banned. Birds of prey recovered. It was considered an environmental grand slam. But some estimates say that millions of people died of malaria in poor countries that could not afford the expensive and/or unavailable pesticides to prevent malaria. The number is debated but even conservative estimates say it is likely over a million. A million people. Did we get that right?
That it may or may not be capable of changing the course of climate change is not the point: the point is that it represents humanity doing its level best to reduce its own contribution towards disaster.
Agreed. But we need to be very calculated and rational about sorting out those paths and how real they are and how we respond to them. We were taught in elementary school (1970s) that we were headed toward a new ice age. The best science said so. It was going to be a global disaster. And some of our responses have already been ill-conceived. Hybrid cars are hugely taxing on the environment and get not much better mileage than a well designed diesel. Using corn to fuel cars is unprecedented madness. The list goes on.
Helping us survive a few thousand years longer is not a bad thing, is it?
I think someone on this site made a comment about how much better off the planet would be if there were no humans here. Now there are innumerable levels of nonsense to this statement but some here might not agree with you on that. ;)
I'm gonna die anyhow so why take care to avoid the busses when I cross the street?
You wouldn't think like that, would you? Unless you had a death wish.
Rob, you are certainly no existentialist.
“Should I kill myself, or have a cup of coffee?”
― Albert Camus
-
Quote from: Ray on January 25, 2017, 08:50:23 PM
Perhaps the problem with such an argument is the failure to understand at a fundamental level the definition of what is wrong. How do we ultimately determine what is wrong, or what is right?
That IS in fact the heart of the matter.
Good! Maybe we can now progress in the discussion. Deciding what is right and what is wrong, or what is moral or immoral, is often a complex process of weighing a number of interacting factors, rather than blindly following a simple set of rules like the 10 Commandments.
Often the situation is so complicated that even large groups of modern scientists consisting of numerous disciplines, as is the case with Climatology which involves about 20 or 30 different scientific disciplines, admit they do not fully understand the processes they are studying.
That we should attempt to take care of the planet upon which we evolved and to which we owe our existence, is a very sound proposition which I don't think any rational and sane person would challenge.
The problem is in the decisions about the most effective ways to tackle this issue. Demonizing CO2 is an interesting political strategy which might in fact turn out to be the best approach. The burning of all types of fossil fuels results in the emission of significant quantities of CO2. Whilst the burning of natural gas results in lower CO2 emissions than the burning of coal, the CO2 emissions from natural gas are still significant. Therefore, if one demonizes CO2, calls it a pollutant, bestows upon it the properties of being able to cause disastrous changes in climate, then this approach might eventually result in a complete paradigm shift from fossil fuels to renewables.
However, there are so many potential negative consequences of demonizing CO2.
(1) A rise in the price of energy, plus a fall in the income of people in certain poor countries who rely upon the sales of fossil fuels, might trigger wars and various conflicts, loss of life of innocent women and children, increased starvation and so on.
(2) If it turns out to be the case in a few decades, after continuing research, that a rise in CO2 levels really does produce a significant global warming that can be quantified with greater certainty, we might congratulate ourselves for our successful paradigm shift towards renewables.
On the other hand, if it were also to become clear some decades into the future, that we were entering into another glacial period (whether Big Ice Age or Little Ice Age), we might regret not having the protection of the warming effects of CO2. (Oh! My Gawd! If only we'd listened to those rational skeptics. ;D )
(3) As I recall, the scare about increasing food shortages as the global population increases, predated the scare about rising CO2 levels.
One of the positive effects of increased CO2 levels, which can be observed with much more certainty than any negative effects that it might have on climate, is its effect on increasing plant growth.
A doubling of CO2 levels reults in a 30-40% increase in the growth of most crops (everything else remaining the same, including the amount of water). In dry areas where crops are often water-stressed, the same doubling of CO2 levels can have an even greater fertilization effect, increasing growth by 60% or more.
Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were apparently around 280 ppm. Current levels are around 400 ppm. If CO2 levels continue rising we might reach double the levels of pre-industrial times in a few decades, say 560 ppm. Plants will love it. If they were sentient beings, they would hug us. ;D
Also, imagine the total value of the increased crop production globally, over the next 40 years or so, due entirely to the increased CO2 levels. It would be worth many trillions of dollars; perhaps equivalent to the entire national debt of the USA. ;)
-
rather than blindly following a simple set of rules like the 10 Commandments.
But that does mean that everyone who follows the 10 Commandments follows them blindly. And of course, those who have studied the 10 Commandments know that they are hardly a simple set of rules whether they believe them to be divine or not. They are deeply complex.
However, there are so many potential negative consequences of demonizing CO2.
All excellent points. Likewise, it will be prudent, while we are prognosticating about the effects of global warming, that we consider the potential benefits. It would be absurd to think there would not be any. But no predictions along those lines have been forthcoming, at least in the popular media.
An article in Atlantic Monthly, probably 10 years ago, opined that global warming, no matter its cause, was going to happen and all the bad predictions were going to come true no matter what we tried to do about them. The most dramatic of these negative effects would occur, according to the article, along coastlines. Coastlines are where populations are concentrated and growing more so. His solution was to work on decreasing coastal population growth and creating a trend for moving people inland to minimize potential human suffering as a result of rising sea levels and increased volatility in coastal weather.
-
I'm not obligated to answer your questions about specific morals and it has no bearing on the conversation. The fact that you ask me a question on my views and then tell me you have zero interest in my views and then beat me up for not answering is the most telling thing so far. You don't seem to be able to string together any sort of logical response to any of this.
Cowardly stuff.
As you well know, the examples I gave are issues on which there is currently controversy. And yet the correct answer has been revealed in the bible, n'est-ce pas? If so, you can simply tell us what it is. But that would lay your conviction open to judgement by the readers. You prefer to deal in hot air and waffle so you decline to do so. As I said, I have zero interest in what your views actually are, but I am amused by your lack of conviction in beng unwilling to share them.
Back in your hole.
-
Agreed. Unless they hurt someone else. Right? These are tough things to sort through. DDT was banned. Birds of prey recovered. It was considered an environmental grand slam. But some estimates say that millions of people died of malaria in poor countries that could not afford the expensive and/or unavailable pesticides to prevent malaria. The number is debated but even conservative estimates say it is likely over a million. A million people. Did we get that right?
Rob, you are certainly no existentialist.
“Should I kill myself, or have a cup of coffee?”
― Albert Camus
And you are no scientist. This little story about DDT is complete piffle. Still, maybe your ami Sarte has a bon mot on the subject?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/30/378223/-
-
Morality comes from God not man. Trying to ascribe a moral rule to how man should handle the effects of climate control is fraught with man's own prejudices. We probably should keep God out of it. It may come down to tradeoffs of results that man must debate on his own.
I don't think so. I am an atheist and a moral person.
-
But here is a better question: Do you think it is wrong for someone to condemn homosexuality as wrong? If so, on what basis. If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine. Everything. The fact that you disagree is immaterial.
I am a total social libertarian. Where I draw the line is when an action by one person puts another's life at risk. I don't believe in the rights of the unborn so don't come back at me about abortion; a woman's right to choose is sacrosanct in my view. thus, it is pretty easy to see that EVERYTHING is not fine.
-
...
If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine. Everything.
...
Are you not blurring or mixing the "fine" relative to a deity or some transcendental set or rules, and the "fine" relative to a particular individual or individuals?
Virtually nothing is "fine" relative to everyone. Virtually everything is "fine" relative to someone. If no deity or transcendental rules exist, neither does the "fine" (good) or evil as judged by them. In that case the only definition of good or evil is relative to a given individual or individuals.
If your sentence above is true then it's equally true that everything is not fine (evil).
By the way, happy Year of the Monkey Rooster to all. It's Chinese New Year's Eve.
-
Cowardly stuff.
Funny. You call me a coward for not taking what you think is bait, and yet:
As I said, I have zero interest in what your views actually are
Then exactly why should I share them with you?
but I am amused by your lack of conviction in beng unwilling to share them.
I suspect you are easily amused. And sharing them has nothing to do with lack of conviction. It has a lot more to do with stooping to your level of pettiness.
If so, you can simply tell us what it is.
Us? Who is us? Who on this board are you speaking for? Or maybe its the royal 'we' you're referring to.
But that would lay your conviction open to judgement by the readers.
I have already laid out my fairly intimate convictions here already so that clearly has nothing to do with it. And now you speak of judgement. That is pretty much irrelevant since I don't really know anyone here personally. The judgement of strangers is hardly cause for concern. But the real irony is that you presume I will be judged by other materialists. And I've made it pretty clear here that there can be no judgment from materialists. What I believe is what I believe. It cannot be right or wrong. Your expectation of judgment is a perfect illustration of the logical inconsistency of your belief structure which says that what you believe is okay and what I believe is okay.
So you claim to have no interest in my opinion, you have no basis to judge it and YET you persist in badgering me about it. Odd no? But it isn't surprising given the level of tact and understanding you've brought to the table so far.
You prefer to deal in hot air and waffle so you decline to do so.
Just because you don't have the faculties to understand something does not make it hot air. Waffling? well, no.
But here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to answer your questions. On one hand, you win, because it makes me feel cheap to do so. Not because I'm worried about 'judgement' but because, well, you know the saying about wrestling with pigs. But as far as my convictions, I have considered them at the deepest possible levels and in the two cases you're referring to have also dealt with them on a deeply personal basis. So here it is:
I do not think it is wrong to be a homosexual.
I do think killing an unborn fetus is morally wrong.
These are obviously two hot topics. I do not care to discuss them here. But I did not bring them up, they were offered as bait. But I will discuss them here if asked or I would be glad to discuss them via PM for anyone who wishes to. And I will also say that I am perfectly willing to discuss them on purely secular grounds without invoking the "fairy in the sky" as jeremyrh so succinctly put it. Isn't the tolerance and open-mindedness of liberals a wonderful thing?
Back in your hole.
Oooh, what?
-
And you are no scientist.
Well, I have a doctorate. In the sciences. So...
This little story about DDT is complete piffle.
You're wrong. Again. Seems like you'd get tired of it. But let's say I am. Total piffle. Does it change the point. No. Not one bit.
-
I don't think so. I am an atheist and a moral person.
I get that. But as has been discussed your definition of moral has no teeth. It is simply what you think it to be. The guy down the street who molests children could claim to be a moral person with the same conviction and the exact same logical consistency.
-
I am a total social libertarian. Where I draw the line is when an action by one person puts another's life at risk. I don't believe in the rights of the unborn so don't come back at me about abortion; a woman's right to choose is sacrosanct in my view. thus, it is pretty easy to see that EVERYTHING is not fine.
That's just life according to Alan. I believe the life of an undelivered girl is sacrosanct. You have no logical basis for contesting my belief. I think mine is moral. You think yours is moral. Psychopathic killers think theirs is moral. You have no logical basis for saying otherwise. You just think your view is right. Why yours and not someone else's who disagrees with you?
-
Are you not blurring or mixing the "fine" relative to a deity or some transcendental set or rules, and the "fine" relative to a particular individual or individuals?
I'm not sure. Maybe?
Virtually nothing is "fine" relative to everyone. Virtually everything is "fine" relative to someone. If no deity or transcendental rules exist, neither does the "fine" (good) or evil as judged by them. In that case the only definition of good or evil is relative to a given individual or individuals.
That is pretty much what I've been trying to say the whole time. Perhaps you have said it better. Do you see why it is so terrible?
If your sentence above is true then it's equally true that everything is not fine (evil).
I don't see how that follows. But you can tack that on to it if you will because it speaks to my point. Without a moral absolute there is no real difference between evil and good.
"If there is no God, everything is permitted."
Fyodor Dostoevsky
By the way, happy Year of the Monkey Rooster to all. It's Chinese New Year's Eve.
And happy New Year to you as well!
-
You are just trying to vilify atheists here. That's not a very moral thing to do. You are trying hard to win an argument on the internet. You keep repeating the same statements expecting different results.
It is ridicilous to say that molesting childen or murder might be moral in any belief system, clearly it is detrimental to whoever is on the receiving end.
A high functioning psychopath do not think they are moral. They know right from wrong rationally but might not feel it like you and me. They lack empathy and compassion. An atheist might not be completely rational for having morals but that does not make it any less valid than yours. The teeth of which you speak are only in your imagination, you might feel compelled by it but you can't use it to persuade anyone else. Same as me. We can make moral arguments and that works for me. In my experience most people share a somewhat similar moral code so I am comfortable in making laws on that basis alone.
And it is not might is right or survival of the fittest. That is just complete nonsense in this context.
-
Well. You could ask the folk who voted for Trump knowing he is in favour of torturing people and knowing that such torture serves no purpose other than providing some sort of satisfaction.
Well, this response just strikes me as silly, and not serious. My response was not to you - though I think it fine that you chose to comment. There is a lot of good philosophical exploration in this thread. I feel as though the majority of your responses are aimed more at just poking the bear, or quick reparte, or some such. That's fine also. But I would encourage you to think more seriously about some of the philosophical implications of the various positions that have been shared here. Having coherent, logically consistent responses - even if in complete disagreement with any particular position, would serve you better (unless of course you're in this merely for the entertainment - which is also OK but perhaps not a best use of anyone's time and thought).
Rand
-
...
It is ridicilous to say that molesting childen or murder might be moral in any belief system, clearly it is detrimental to whoever is on the receiving end.
...
Huh!!!!
You really do need to get out more if you think that statement stands as written!
Whole political systems and government administrations have been built on or resulted in mass murder (we normally call it genocide).
The worst excesses of this phenomenon in history are all arguably recent events (within the last one hundred years or so).
Many of those crimes were perpetrated by societies who, outwardly anyway, represented societies that were and are supposedly technologically and socially advanced as opposed to, also supposedly, "savages" from Africa, South America, or South East Asia.
In every case large populations of individuals (tens of millions) gave (moral) support to heinous crimes, and at the time, and maybe even now, believed that their cause was just and moral.
And, certainly, in the case of Nazi Germany, it may have ended up as a dictatorship but it certainly did not start that way.
Hitler and the Nazi party were voted in by the majority of Germans and endorsed over several elections while Hitler was slowly building his power base until he got to the point where democratic choice no longer mattered. The Nazi's were never coy or evasive about what they about and they were elected on that basis.
They knew and any apologetic now that Hitler deceived Germany is false - they knew and they endorsed him.
Forget about individual psychopathic murderers the biggest murderers in history have always been politicians. And those mass murders have always been justified on a MORAL basis because without a moral basis they don't get the necessary support to do what they want (even outright dictatorships actually depend on mass support).
The fact that the moral argument can be shown to be deeply flawed (as it always can be) does not detract one iota from the fact that the individuals involved most often believed deeply in what they were doing and believed they were "right".
So, I have to call this conclusion for what it is: twaddle!
Tony Jay
-
You are just trying to vilify atheists here. That's not a very moral thing to do. You are trying hard to win an argument on the internet. You keep repeating the same statements expecting different results.
It is ridicilous to say that molesting childen or murder might be moral in any belief system, clearly it is detrimental to whoever is on the receiving end.
Tony answered this very nicely above. And the measure of what is moral is not simply a question of what is detrimental or not. That notion can be endlessly abused.
A high functioning psychopath do not think they are moral. They know right from wrong rationally but might not feel it like you and me. They lack empathy and compassion.
You are right in a technical sense. Still, anyone, even a psychopath can feel an action is moral.
An atheist might not be completely rational for having morals but that does not make it any less valid than yours.
Incorrect. Without an absolute basis for a moral, it isn't a moral. It is an idea, no more or less valid than any other idea.
The teeth of which you speak are only in your imagination
I certainly cannot prove otherwise. And if it is true then we are in the same logical predicament. And it is horrifying.
you might feel compelled by it but you can't use it to persuade anyone else.
Also not true. I have already persuaded others (probably not here) to at least acknowledge the logical inconsistency of believing in the existence of absolute morals in the materialist world view. Although, some here have essentially come to this conclusion when they state that morals are what individuals make of them. That's all I'm really saying.
In my experience most people share a somewhat similar moral code so I am comfortable in making laws on that basis alone.
As Tony said, this is the sort of logic that would have to condone slavery. The U.S. constitution provided for the ongoing existence of chattel slavery well into the Civil War. That's pure evil that the entire nation endorsed by making laws based on a shared "similar moral code".
And it is not might is right or survival of the fittest. That is just complete nonsense in this context.
That is the entire context. If an individual does not share the moral code that others share, his behavior can only be shaped by the threat of violence or loss at the hands of those who have the power to do so. That is the very definition of might makes right.
“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”
― Flannery O'Connor
-
You are just trying to vilify atheists here.
I am not. How do you think I have done so? Showing someone to be logically inconsistent is hardly vilification. Many here don't believe I've made my case and those who do don't seem to give a rip.
That's not a very moral thing to do.
If I have offended you then I am sorry. Please tell me how I did so.
You are trying hard to win an argument on the internet.
Isn't that what the people who are arguing their point are doing too? Is it wrong to do so? Aren't you doing it?
You keep repeating the same statements expecting different results.
Do you suppose I'm expecting different results any more than anyone else making counter arguments?
-
Let me make another thing clear. I have stated, with Sartre, Dostoevsky and many others, that without god all things are permissible. There is no moral basis and to those who are honest with themselves this prospect is horrifying. Not just because what this means about the real world but because it means each individual is utterly alone since he has to make his own morals.
But the transcendental side is just as horrifying. If there is a god how do we know what he wants us to do? How do we know which religion is right? And if we think we know there is a perfectly good and completely powerful god out there and we think know what he expects from us then we also know that we fall short of those expectations daily. That is horrifying too.
-
Let me make another thing clear. I have stated, with Sartre, Dostoevsky and many others, that without god all things are permissible. There is no moral basis and to those who are honest with themselves this prospect is horrifying. Not just because what this means about the real world but because it means each individual is utterly alone since he has to make his own morals.
But the transcendental side is just as horrifying. If there is a god how do we know what he wants us to do? How do we know which religion is right? And if we think we know there is a perfectly good and completely powerful god out there and we think know what he expects from us then we also know that we fall short of those expectations daily. That is horrifying too.
It's not horrifying at all. Some may even find it a relief. This is all about your own psyche, nothing more. Look East. Millions of people live quite happily with other beliefs which do not involve tying themselves in ghastly Abrahamic knots and going about in guilt and woe. If they are very lucky they may even never have heard of Jean Paul Sartre, an unpleasant piece of work if ever there was one. Honestly, if Christianity is filling someone's head with "horror" then I would suggest walking away. Give up on the burden of history's crazy old men crushing people with cruel and completely unrealistic expectations. It is not worth it (as another crazy old man in the White House is about to discover). Choose another way of living. Find a happier life. The alleged horror is all inside your head and it will only keep you in chains for as long as you want it to.
-
I can't say that I think either morality or moderate religious belief is truly about absolutes.
As a child I was subjected to two forms of religiously-run school: the first was a Catholic one, dependent upon French and Swiss priests. As my family and they were Europeans living within an Indian context, as with all expat communities we got to know each other quite well as people, not only as figureheads. I can't remember religious indoctrination from them at all, but I do remember a lot of friendship, and one priest even spent the time some afternoons after school to take me down to the beach and get me swimming. (I owe him. It later saved both myself and my wife.) They also held a large library of books of all types, detective yarns included, and it was through that resource that I picked up on Lemmy Caution, Slim Callaghan, Perry Mason, Hercule Poirot etc. etc. I was maybe nine years old at the time, and for most kids it was perhaps Superman, The Hulk or even The Beano held sway?
The educational limits of that local school exhausted, I was then shoved into a boarding school far away, run by American, Canadian, Australian and Kiwi missionaries. If the 'morality' of those people is reflected, today, in the mindset of the religious groupings in the States, God help the world. Has anyone imagined fundamental extremism to be peculiar to the Middle East, they are sadly, and most dangerously, mistaken. Those years in the latter establishment were the most unhappy and spiritually crippling of my life. I am surprised that I found the inner strength to rise above the experience and discover a private faith, any faith, of my own. In my mind, none of the established religions represents anything much more than degrees of power lust and the desire to exert mind control for a plethora of different, possibly unhealthy reasons. I think that, in truth, God is seriously misrepresented by most of these groups. That they may, however, have some positive spin-off consequences is a saving grace.
Whether there is a general acceptance of what may be a "standard issue" of morality perception is, well, difficult to say: one would have to know, intimately, far more people than I do in order to form an educated guess. FWIW, I suspect that people do, by and large, accept the morality behind the Sacred Ten, whether they actually do or do not live by those codes being something entirely else. Of course, that does mean that one has to exclude all extremists from any consensus of opinion or it will be distorted too far to make a broad, general sense of where we are today.
Rob C
-
Huh!!!!
You really do need to get out more if you think that statement stands as written!
Whole political systems and government administrations have been built on or resulted in mass murder (we normally call it genocide).
The worst excesses of this phenomenon in history are all arguably recent events (within the last one hundred years or so).
Many of those crimes were perpetrated by societies who, outwardly anyway, represented societies that were and are supposedly technologically and socially advanced as opposed to, also supposedly, "savages" from Africa, South America, or South East Asia.
In every case large populations of individuals (tens of millions) gave (moral) support to heinous crimes, and at the time, and maybe even now, believed that their cause was just and moral.
And, certainly, in the case of Nazi Germany, it may have ended up as a dictatorship but it certainly did not start that way.
Hitler and the Nazi party were voted in by the majority of Germans and endorsed over several elections while Hitler was slowly building his power base until he got to the point where democratic choice no longer mattered. The Nazi's were never coy or evasive about what they about and they were elected on that basis.
They knew and any apologetic now that Hitler deceived Germany is false - they knew and they endorsed him.
Forget about individual psychopathic murderers the biggest murderers in history have always been politicians. And those mass murders have always been justified on a MORAL basis because without a moral basis they don't get the necessary support to do what they want (even outright dictatorships actually depend on mass support).
The fact that the moral argument can be shown to be deeply flawed (as it always can be) does not detract one iota from the fact that the individuals involved most often believed deeply in what they were doing and believed they were "right".
So, I have to call this conclusion for what it is: twaddle!
Tony Jay
Godwin. Maybe closer to home. In 2003 a coalition of western forces invaded Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands dead. Based on false evidence of WMD. Had the public known the WMD scare was just propaganda this would never have been possible. I would like to believe that anyway. Just give people the facts and I have some faith in humanity doing the right thing. Even the Nazis were trying to destroy evidence of their death camps before the end. They knew it was wrong.
-
Godwin. Maybe closer to home. In 2003 a coalition of western forces invaded Iraq leading to hundreds of thousands dead. Based on false evidence of WMD. Had the public known the WMD scare was just propaganda this would never have been possible. I would like to believe that anyway. Just give people the facts and I have some faith in humanity doing the right thing. Even the Nazis were trying to destroy evidence of their death camps before the end. They knew it was wrong.
Actually fearing retribution is not the same thing as acknowledging moral wrongdoing.
(I have actually had to face the fear of retribution in the past for actually doing the right thing...)
As for the example of Iraq, did you mention this to agree or disagree with my point?
Tony Jay
-
...
If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine. Everything.
...
I'm not sure. Maybe?
The first part of your sentence "If everything is up to the individual" means there is no overarching morality except by a consensus of individuals and the laws they create to force that consensus on everyone within their jurisdiction. If that is so, what is your basis for saying "then everything is fine"? I said, and you agreed, that if everything is up to the individual virtually nothing is "fine" relative to everyone and virtually everything is "fine" relative to someone. That directly proves the sentence you keep repeating "If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine" to be illogical and self contradictory. The first part of the sentence actually implies that EVERYTHING is fine with no one. You would be hard pressed to find any individual who believes that literally everything is "fine", much less a consensus of society. Fyodor Dostoevsky or not, that is simple logic.
-
Actually fearing retribution is not the same thing as acknowledging moral wrongdoing.
(I have actually had to face the fear of retribution in the past for actually doing the right thing...)
As for the example of Iraq, did you mention this to agree or disagree with my point?
Tony Jay
It is an example of good people doing evil things. You will have to create a situation of us-or-them for moral people to kill others. You were willing to condemn all of germany. By that logic I would condemn the Bush-Blair axis of evil.
-
It is an example of good people doing evil things. You will have to create a situation of us-or-them for moral people to kill others. You were willing to condemn all of germany. By that logic I would condemn the Bush-Blair axis of evil.
Actually it is an example of morally flawed people doing evil things.
-
Actually it is an example of morally flawed people doing evil things.
Well sure. I could agree with that. Religious people with flawed morals.
-
Well sure. I could agree with that. Religious people with flawed morals.
Or non-religious people with flawed morals.
-
The first part of your sentence "If everything is up to the individual" means there is no overarching morality except by a consensus of individuals and the laws they create to force that consensus on everyone within their jurisdiction. If that is so, what is your basis for saying "then everything is fine"? I said, and you agreed, that if everything is up to the individual virtually nothing is "fine" relative to everyone and virtually everything is "fine" relative to someone. That directly proves the sentence you keep repeating "If everything is up to the individual, then EVERYTHING is fine" to be illogical and self contradictory. The first part of the sentence actually implies that EVERYTHING is fine with no one. You would be hard pressed to find any individual who believes that literally everything is "fine", much less a consensus of society. Fyodor Dostoevsky or not, that is simple logic.
I'm sorry Dean, but you logic does not follow. And you can push aside my quotes, many of them from brilliant atheist thinkers who agree with me. Most of the current popular atheist intellectuals agree with me and virtually all theist philosophers agree with me (even though I have not brought them in to the discussion). The very few atheists who try to argue your point are typically ones who defend atheism as a religion for which they serve as PR conduits. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
We keep saying over and over again that whole societies who thought themselves perfectly moral did and supported things that were obviously wrong without thinking themselves wrong in any way. Slavery was codified in the U.S. through the democratic process.
Your view that it would be hard to find an individual who believes that literally everything is fine is pointless for two reasons. first, most people don't ever consider the logical consistency of their belief structure. Second. while you might not find an individual who believes everything is permissible, you can EASILY find individuals who believe that things you find moral abhorrent to be absolutely okay and who feel themselves perfectly within their own moral framework. And for every horrible deed of belief you can think of you can find an individual who holds it dear. That's the point. It is inescapable. If morality is up to the individual then any given thing can be permissible to him. If morality is up to popular ideals, history has made it abundantly clear that this does not guarantee or even promote moral behavior.
You're in a logical corner that you can't fight your way out of. And it is really very simple. You can be a materialist and understand that everything is permitted as all of the great existentialist and atheist thinkers have concluded and be logically consistent. Or you can be a materialist and believe that there are moral absolutes that are guaranteed by popular assertion or individual choice and be logically inconsistent.
You just have to ask yourself how much it hurts to be consistent or inconsistent. It seems to matter to you.
-
Religious people with flawed morals.
And there are plenty of them. A majority of them I'd say. I'm a religious person and get things wrong all the time. I don't think any of the, what, maybe two or three of us, who are pressing this point are claiming to be more moral than anyone else. We aren't and that is not the point.
And showing that a religious person has done something morally wrong does not necessarily impugn the religion and certainly does not weaken arguments for a creator. That would be like saying that Newton was wrong about gravity because he he stole chalk and erasers from the university. ;D
-
I can't say that I think either morality or moderateOf course, that does mean that one has to exclude all extremists from any consensus of opinion or it will be distorted too far to make a broad, general sense of where we are today.
Rob C
Well, yes and no. If you are wont to defend morality as nothing more than what any individual believes for himself then an extremist of any kind is the best example.
But yes, if you see morality to be a product of the collective wisdom of a nation or culture then extremism is a very poor example. That is why Nazi Germany is often invoked. It is a good example. We fail to consider Stalin and Mao because they sit outside of what most of us feel to be the western culture we identify with. But they are also good examples. So too is the French Revolution which might be the best example if it were not for the institution of chattel slavery in the U.S. It was a codified national institution. U.S. northerners like to hold themselves above that fray, but the north officially condoned slavery in the south until it no longer met their economic or military purposes. These are all reasonable examples of why morality by popular consensus is as weak as morality based on personal choice.
-
It has to be said though. Newton was just plain wrong about gravity.
-
Well, yes and no. If you are wont to defend morality as nothing more than what any individual believes for himself then an extremist of any kind is the best example.
But yes, if you see morality to be a product of the collective wisdom of a nation or culture then extremism is a very poor example. That is why Nazi Germany is often invoked. It is a good example. We fail to consider Stalin and Mao because they sit outside of what most of us feel to be the western culture we identify with. But they are also good examples. So too is the French Revolution which might be the best example if it were not for the institution of chattel slavery in the U.S. It was a codified national institution. U.S. northerners like to hold themselves above that fray, but the north officially condoned slavery in the south until it no longer met their economic or military purposes. These are all reasonable examples of why morality by popular consensus is as weak as morality based on personal choice.
George, the quote you took from my post is somewhat garbled in the way it is represented in your reply... in fact, as a sentence, it doesn't make any sense at all. Something went amiss there!
Rob
-
...
We keep saying over and over again that whole societies who thought themselves perfectly moral did and supported things that were obviously wrong without thinking themselves wrong in any way. Slavery was codified in the U.S. through the democratic process.
Absolutely true.
Your view that it would be hard to find an individual who believes that literally everything is fine is pointless for two reasons. first, most people don't ever consider the logical consistency of their belief structure.
An individual's belief structure, since it is dependent only on the individual, is whatever it is, logical or not.
Second. while you might not find an individual who believes everything is permissible, you can EASILY find individuals who believe that things you find moral abhorrent to be absolutely okay and who feel themselves perfectly within their own moral framework. And for every horrible deed of belief you can think of you can find an individual who holds it dear. That's the point. It is inescapable. If morality is up to the individual then any given thing can be permissible to him. If morality is up to popular ideals, history has made it abundantly clear that this does not guarantee or even promote moral behavior.
Absolutely true. IMO history has made it abundantly clear that nothing guarantees moral behavior.
You're in a logical corner that you can't fight your way out of. And it is really very simple. You can be a materialist and understand that everything is permitted as all of the great existentialist and atheist thinkers have concluded and be logically consistent. Or you can be a materialist and believe that there are moral absolutes that are guaranteed by popular assertion or individual choice and be logically inconsistent.
I'm not fighting but it seems that you are not understanding what I'm trying to convey. I'd rephrase the first part of your sentence above as "You can be a materialist and understand that everything is permitted by someone, or some group". I could agree completely with that and I think history confirms it. Try as I might I do not see any inconsistency there, it is what I have been saying all along, and I truly do not understand why you keep saying it is illogical. We may in fact be saying the same things with some disconnect that prevents one or the other of us from understanding. You consistently omit the basis for saying "everything is fine" in the sentence "If everything is up to the individual, then everything is fine". I would be in agreement with the sentence "If everything is up to the individual, then everything is fine according to at least one individual". You imply it is fine, period, implying "fine for everyone", which is not true. I think THAT may be the basis of our entire disagreement, but perhaps there is something else.
-
I don't think any of the, what, maybe two or three of us, who are pressing this point are claiming to be more moral than anyone else. We aren't and that is not the point.
Really?
You can only have morals without God if you water down the meaning of the word 'moral'. Even that will not pass muster though.
That seems to be exactly what you are doing.
-
Let me make another thing clear. I have stated, with Sartre, Dostoevsky and many others, that without god all things are permissible. There is no moral basis and to those who are honest with themselves this prospect is horrifying. Not just because what this means about the real world but because it means each individual is utterly alone since he has to make his own morals.
So, the counterfactual argument must be that with God there must be a moral basis as written in the holy scriptures, correct? If so, what then is the meaning of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the 30 years war, the enablers of the Holocaust (many of whom were good God fearing Christians), various genocides throughout the world all in the name of God (European colonization of Africa), the trans-Atlantic slave trade (just visit the new African-American museum that is about five blocks south of the White House in DC to see lots of good stuff that was carried out in the name of God), etc. If this your moral God (how can there be any other?), I'm pretty glad that I'm an atheist with a moral code that can't possibly have in credit in your eyes as it is without God. Maybe it's good to be a hypocrite.
-
And, certainly, in the case of Nazi Germany, it may have ended up as a dictatorship but it certainly did not start that way.
Hitler and the Nazi party were voted in by the majority of Germans and endorsed over several elections while Hitler was slowly building his power base until he got to the point where democratic choice no longer mattered. The Nazi's were never coy or evasive about what they about and they were elected on that basis.
They knew and any apologetic now that Hitler deceived Germany is false - they knew and they endorsed him.
Perhaps you might want to re-read some German history. They were not a majority party in the Reichstag but did hold the highest number of seats. It was President von Hindenberg who appointed Hitler Chancellor at which point he was able to seize full power. The last "free" election took place in March 1933 and even then NSDAP only won 43% of the popular vote. I don't think this qualifies as a majority. Perhaps there were 3-5 million fraudulent votes cast so in Hitler's mind it was a terrific majority. ;) Them's the facts.
-
It's not horrifying at all. Some may even find it a relief. This is all about your own psyche, nothing more. Look East. Millions of people live quite happily with other beliefs which do not involve tying themselves in ghastly Abrahamic knots and going about in guilt and woe.
East? Like Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? Infant girls left to die because they are valueless? Governments that tell you how many children you may have? Not to mention the fact that your statement is pretty racists assuming happy hoards that do not worry about their place in the world or what is right and wrong.
If they are very lucky they may even never have heard of Jean Paul Sartre, an unpleasant piece of work if ever there was one.
Agreed. And one who could not live with his own convictions to boot.
Honestly, if Christianity is filling someone's head with "horror" then I would suggest walking away.
I never once suggested that Christianity was filling anyone's heads with horror and nor should it.
Give up on the burden of history's crazy old men crushing people with cruel and completely unrealistic expectations.
Agreed. But I'm not a materialist so I do not place any weight on men's expectations at all. Only a materialist would do so. Ironic, no?
Choose another way of living.
Odd advice from a materialist. "Find a better way, you say. What way, yours? Again, the irony.
Find a happier life.
Found it. Well, it found me.
The alleged horror is all inside your head and it will only keep you in chains for as long as you want it to.
First advice, now psychoanalysis. Wow. And really bad psychoanalysis too. But that's just the thing. There is no horror in my life. And there is no logical inconsistency either. And there are definitely no chains. Just the opposite in fact. Complete freedom.
-
It has to be said though. Newton was just plain wrong about gravity.
Good point. Yes he was wrong. . But that won't keep you from using stairs will it? ;) So replace Newton with Einstein. Same point.
-
George, the quote you took from my post is somewhat garbled in the way it is represented in your reply... in fact, as a sentence, it doesn't make any sense at all. Something went amiss there!
Rob
Sorry. When I said "you" I did not mean you, Rob, I meant the general you/we.
-
An individual's belief structure, since it is dependent only on the individual, is whatever it is, logical or not.
Yes. I agree with this every time it is stated. But what have you said really? It is what it is?
IMO history has made it abundantly clear that nothing guarantees moral behavior.
Yes it has.
I'm not fighting but it seems that you are not understanding what I'm trying to convey. I'd rephrase the first part of your sentence above as "You can be a materialist and understand that everything is permitted by someone, or some group". I could agree completely with that and I think history confirms it. Try as I might I do not see any inconsistency there, it is what I have been saying all along, and I truly do not understand why you keep saying it is illogical.
Yes, we seem to be on different wavelengths. But there is a distinct difference between the way we perceive things to be and what is logically consistent. I think a lot of people struggle with this. So maybe a question is better: Do you believe chattel slavery (ownership of another human as property against his will) to be wrong under all conditions and for all times? If so why? And do you believe it correct to force someone else with violence if necessary not to own slaves? As a materialist there are two possible answers for you: 1.) I believe it is wrong because that is the belief that I have made for myself. I think it is correct and will use or advocate violence to enforce it. 2.) Contemporary society has, for the most part, proscribed slavery and prevents with laws under the penalty of violence so I believe it is immoral.
The logical inconsistency is that what you appeal to is 1.) Individual preference. and 2.) Cultural norms. Both of these have permitted slavery as a moral and right institution. Why are the "morals" of an individual or culture that believe slavery to be okay any less valid than your individual or cultural belief that it is not?
The answer is that by the materialist viewpoint there is no difference between the two sets of morals. They both abide by the same standard.
So you may ask me, why then, do we not have slavery? The answer is twofold: 1.) Because of the threat of violence. If you enslave someone the police will physically take your freedom. And 2.) We do have slavery in virtually every place and circumstance in which the threat or application of violence is insufficient to prevent it.
The common denominator is the threat of and application of violence, not a moral absolute.
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
And then there is the corollary: How can we have logically consistent moral beliefs? The answer is only this: a higher authority.
You consistently omit the basis for saying "everything is fine" in the sentence "If everything is up to the individual, then everything is fine".
I don't know how to respond to that. It seems patently self evident. If morals are what I make of them then what isn't fine?
I would be in agreement with the sentence "If everything is up to the individual, then everything is fine according to at least one individual". You imply it is fine, period, implying "fine for everyone", which is not true. I think THAT may be the basis of our entire disagreement, but perhaps there is something else.
That must be it. I think you are being a bit too concrete here. My point is not that slavery is fine for you just because it is fine for someone else. My point is that based on the materialist viewpoint that moral authority is determined by the self or the community then you have no logical basis for telling the slave owner he is absolutely wrong under all circumstances. He has formed his moral belief in the same way you have: within himself or ascribing to the norms of a culture.
And interestingly, these two sources of moral belief often cited here are mutually exclusive. The mores of a culture are meaningless when moral authority comes from within each individual. That is the definition of lawlessness.
-
Really?
So you are accusing me of claiming to be more moral than anyone else? Show me where I have done so. Logical consistency and moral behavior are not the same. One can be both a logically inconsistent and upstanding citizen at the same time. I have never claimed otherwise.
Better yet, if I have in some way claimed moral superiority, I apologize. It was never intended. Alan, an atheist, did claim to be a moral person. I did not and do not dispute that. I would even go so far as to say that most days I do things that I believe to be wrong.
-
Perhaps you might want to re-read some German history. They were not a majority party in the Reichstag but did hold the highest number of seats. It was President von Hindenberg who appointed Hitler Chancellor at which point he was able to seize full power. The last "free" election took place in March 1933 and even then NSDAP only won 43% of the popular vote. I don't think this qualifies as a majority. Perhaps there were 3-5 million fraudulent votes cast so in Hitler's mind it was a terrific majority. ;) Them's the facts.
I've actually studied Hitler's rise to and fall from power. Years ago. But this is not relevant to the point being made.
The point is that some here, maybe you, are suggesting that how a collective shape their mores is a valid basis for morals. I am simply pointing out that a very large number of people within the Nazi regime had their own deeply held moral structure that most of the world held to be abhorrent then and still do now. It was not my intent to lump all Germans as Nazis. The fact that there were exceptions doesn't change that.
Likewise with slavery. There were vocal and passionate abolitionists all along. That does not change the fact that from its beginning until 1863 the nation of the United States advocated, allowed and codified the institution of chattel slavery. So how can you say that morals are what a culture makes of them and then logically assert that slavery is wrong? You would be rejecting your own basis for morality in doing so.
-
East? Like Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? Infant girls left to die because they are valueless? Governments that tell you how many children you may have? Not to mention the fact that your statement is pretty racists assuming happy hoards that do not worry about their place in the world or what is right and wrong.
Agreed. And one who could not live with his own convictions to boot.
I never once suggested that Christianity was filling anyone's heads with horror and nor should it.
Agreed. But I'm not a materialist so I do not place any weight on men's expectations at all. Only a materialist would do so. Ironic, no?
Odd advice from a materialist. "Find a better way, you say. What way, yours? Again, the irony.
Found it. Well, it found me.
First advice, now psychoanalysis. Wow. And really bad psychoanalysis too. But that's just the thing. There is no horror in my life. And there is no logical inconsistency either. And there are definitely no chains. Just the opposite in fact. Complete freedom.
I'm delighted that you are free and happy, though I wonder if like me you have found that people with a curious urge to prove something to others all the time are often on the run from the consequences of proving something to themselves. Still, if someone says they are free and happy, we can only ask them to share their recipe for amazement with us. For example, what are you hoping to achieve with your posts on this thread and do you think you have succeeded? By the way, you seem a tad mistaken about the belief systems of the East which have been developing for several thousand years and which do not, in fact, have anything whatsoever to do with Pol Pot, Chairman Mao or anything else you mention in that line. Mao and Pol Pot's beliefs, insofar as they had any, were cooked up in the West.
-
So how can you say that morals are what a culture makes of them and then logically assert that slavery is wrong? You would be rejecting your own basis for morality in doing so.
I never said that. I only said that one can lead a moral life in the absence of God which is one of your early statements said was an important part. One can look at a variety of writings from various religions and see how moral codes evolved. One should not lie. One should be faithful to one's spouse. One should be fair in business dealings and so on. It's interesting that in a professed "moral" country (at least this is what we hear from many religious leaders) that we now have a President who fails on many counts.
-
Perhaps you might want to re-read some German history. They were not a majority party in the Reichstag but did hold the highest number of seats. It was President von Hindenberg who appointed Hitler Chancellor at which point he was able to seize full power. The last "free" election took place in March 1933 and even then NSDAP only won 43% of the popular vote. I don't think this qualifies as a majority. Perhaps there were 3-5 million fraudulent votes cast so in Hitler's mind it was a terrific majority. ;) Them's the facts.
And this changes my point, how?
The point remains that many tens of millions of individuals in Germany supported Hitler and the Nazis,
They provided him with the support, moral support, for his policies.
Just as an aside why do you think Donald Trump is doing what he is doing right now, over and above some pretty vocal protests?
Could it be that he believes he has a mandate, a moral foundation, for his actions?
No-one can accuse him of being underhand about this - he has been volubly, garrulously proclaiming what he would do for more than a year should he be elected.
I do not like at all what he is about but he is doing exactly now what he said he would do before...
In this at least a refreshing change from most politicians.
Also, on what basis are these protesters protesting?
Could it be that they believe that there is a moral imperative here?
If so, on what basis can they claim this?
After all Donald Trump has been legally elected President of the United States.
Executive orders are perfectly legal per se (a mistake in my opinion - but there you go!).
Some believe that some or all the contents of that executive order can be successfully overturned by the courts but that has yet to be determined.
The protesters clearly do not like Trump nor do they like his policies but that is neither here nor there and does not form any kind of foundation for a moral imperative.
Clearly they must believe that there is a transcendent principle that is in danger of being violated - in other words some things are always wrong.
Whether this does in fact turn out to be the case is also still to be determined.
Nonetheless, these protests are meaningless on every level apart from the moral level.
Donald Trump is not breaking the law (or this has not been shown to be the case yet - and I am pretty sure he would not have taken this step if had been advised that this order could and would overturned on constitutional grounds at a flick of some judges pen).
Yet, if morals are just something that someone believes today - even if collectevized (horrible term) - then what about tomorrow should we change our minds?
Morals are then reduced to a matter of opinion.
We all understand that laws come and go, but laws and morals are definitely not the same!
Political parties and political policies come and go in the same way.
But for morals to be morals there has to be a transcendent quality to them otherwise they are just fashion and opinion.
I responded to a post Torbjorn wrote (apologies for not getting the spelling exact) where, he, despite denying the existence of transcendental quality to morality then made a point (which I quoted) where he said that that murder and child abuse are always wrong and he gave the reason why he thought that was the case.
To him, not only was this self-evident, but it was clear that he felt that this should be self-evident to everyone else as well.
My question is why?
Why should a statement like that be self-evident to anyone who reads it?
In my response I clearly showed how the apparently self-evident can be turned on its head - both individually and collectively.
The only way that that statement can be self-evident (under any circumstances) is if it does indeed have a transcendent quality.
Maybe Torbjorn did not realize that he was contradicting himself.
Another response to my post took some of the examples I gave and extended them both back into history as well as forward to the last couple of decades.
It appears, given the examples quoted, that the the thrust of the post was that Christians have been responsible for many of history's tragedies.
This is correct.
However, I also think that the implication was that, as Christians, they should have known better.
I also agree wholeheartedly with this.
However, to then say that because they did, in fact, not do better, that this somehow proves Christian morality and ethics false and also the broader concept of transcendent quality of morality as null and void, does not follow logically.
What it does conclusively prove is that any individual, whatever label is attached to describe him or her, is prone to moral failure and will actually commit evil acts.
This is true whether one's deeds are committed to history or not, or whether one is found guilty of a crime or not, or whether any third-party is aware of those evil acts or not.
It certainly does not disprove the transcendent quality of morality.
Taking this kind of argument to the realm of law:
All (almost all?) legal jurisdictions on earth have laws prohibiting murder - it is against the law to murder.
All (almost all?) societies, as a whole, accept the legal position on murder.
Yet there is not a legal jurisdiction on earth where murder has not been committed (I be you someone will dig up some obscure example to contradict me here!!) and the laws pertaining to murder are on the statute books precisely because it could happen.
Laws against murder do not prevent murder.
Yet does anybody believe those laws are a failure because they fail to prevent murder?
Isn't it rather silly to dismiss the notion that murder (or any other form of evil) is wrong as a transcendent moral imperative because it can be ignored either individually or collectively yet endorse man-made legislation that is just as powerless to prevent the same thing?
This is not an argument about how many, or how few, murders, crimes, moral failures, or evil acts occur in different places around the world in different jurisdictions merely that they occur.
Tony Jay
-
I'm delighted that you are free and happy,
Thank you. You sound very sincere.
though I wonder if like me you have found that people with a curious urge to prove something to others all the time are often on the run from the consequences of proving something to themselves.
No. I have not thought about it that way. But it seems odd to me that you say this as if it were a personality disorder (and as if you were a psychoanalyst). What seems more peculiar, especially if you do consider it as some sort of flaw or defect, is that those who persistently participate in the same discussion, like you, have the very same pathology. Right?
I wonder if like me you have found that people on both sides of a running discussion are in it for similar reasons?
Still, if someone says they are free and happy, we can only ask them to share their recipe for amazement with us.
Amazement? I don't know what you mean. I also don't think your request for me to share my 'recipe' is genuine. I suspect, at most, you believe it will expose me to ridicule, which would be mean spirited if true. If you are genuinely interested, PM me.
For example, what are you hoping to achieve with your posts on this thread
Why rehash the thread? Its all here. Is it fair to ask you the same question?
and do you think you have succeeded?
I don't know. Have you?
By the way, you seem a tad mistaken about the belief systems of the East which have been developing for several thousand years and which do not, in fact, have anything whatsoever to do with Pol Pot, Chairman Mao or anything else you mention in that line. Mao and Pol Pot's beliefs, insofar as they had any, were cooked up in the West.
So? The statement was made, maybe by you, I don't recall, that the east was full of shiny happy people. Pot and Mao were in the east. Things were not happy regardless of what influenced them. Same with Hirohito. But the whole notion of the west being broken, repressed and unhappy while the east is enlightened and peaceful is a special kind of fantasy and demeans what it means to be a human in the east. They struggle with the same things we do.
-
I never said that. I only said that one can lead a moral life in the absence of God which is one of your early statements said was an important part.
You misunderstand. Again. I did not say an atheist or a materialist can't lead a moral life. And that has never been the point. I have said only that without some form of absolute moral authority then it is logically inconsistent to believe that absolute morals exist. If absolute morals don't exist then no morals are absolute. They are all open for interpretation by individuals or groups. Simple.
we now have a President who fails on many counts.
We've never had a president who didn't. But I agree about Trump. I find Trump repulsive and did not vote for him.
-
It appears, given the examples quoted, that the the thrust of the post was that Christians have been responsible for many of history's tragedies.
This is correct.
However, I also think that the implication was that, as Christians, they should have known better.
I also agree wholeheartedly with this.
I would go as far as to say that those who commit immoral acts and claim to be religious, or even worse, claiming to do them on the authority of a deity, are the very worst of all.
And while across history great moral injustices have been done by the religious and in the name of religion, it would be silly to ignore the fact that during the twentieth century all crimes against humanity by Christians pale in comparison to those perpetrated by secularists. Stalin and Mao alone are enough to prove this point. Hitler can be thrown in although some like to declare he was from a Christian background. But that's silly as none of his doctrines or ideals were even remotely Christian. All the abominations in all of history put together don't compares to the global human carnage caused by Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
The population of the world in the year 1500 was about 500 million. Between Hitler, Stalin and Mao, Hitler killed by far the fewest, Mao by far the most. Combined, they killed between 80-120 million noncombatants (very conservative numbers by the way). None of them in the name of religion.
-
There are no absolute morals outside of a religious context, but there are enforceable morals when a society codifies them into laws. That's how you can obtain an authoritative morality, if not absolute.
-
There are no absolute morals outside of a religious context, but there are enforceable morals when a society codifies them into laws. That's how you can obtain an authoritative morality, if not absolute.
Law and morality are exceptionally poor bed-fellows!
Tony Jay
-
So? The statement was made, maybe by you, I don't recall, that the east was full of shiny happy people. Pot and Mao were in the east. Things were not happy regardless of what influenced them. Same with Hirohito. But the whole notion of the west being broken, repressed and unhappy while the east is enlightened and peaceful is a special kind of fantasy and demeans what it means to be a human in the east. They struggle with the same things we do.
That's not what I meant, as I'm sure you know perfectly well. Still, if you wish, don't consider the reality that the world is full of different beliefs and philosophies of great antiquity and sophistication which, to repeat, have nothing whatsoever to do with the beliefs espoused by Pol Pot or Chairman Mao, insofar as practising sociopaths can have any. I can see that for some people having to look at the implications of that might spoil the party. Have you read The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan? There are also some videos on YouTube in which he summarizes his argument in lecture form. His book makes the point very well that our bearings are highly contingent and haven't emerged in quite the way we in the West like to think they have, not least because we've grown up forgetting that we know very little about pretty well any of the world east of about Switzerland. But never mind, I guess some folks prefer just to keep on running.
-
And this changes my point, how?
I was calling out a misstatement of history.
The point remains that many tens of millions of individuals in Germany supported Hitler and the Nazis,
They provided him with the support, moral support, for his policies.
There is ample historical documentation that many did not believe his politics would lead to the Holocaust.
Just as an aside why do you think Donald Trump is doing what he is doing right now, over and above some pretty vocal protests?
Could it be that he believes he has a mandate, a moral foundation, for his actions?
No-one can accuse him of being underhand about this - he has been volubly, garrulously proclaiming what he would do for more than a year should he be elected.
I do not like at all what he is about but he is doing exactly now what he said he would do before...
In this at least a refreshing change from most politicians.
Yes he believes he has a mandate. He is also delusional in being preoccupied with lots of unrelated stuff such as the weather on inauguration day, the size of the crowd, the number of fraudulent voters, etc.
Also, on what basis are these protesters protesting?
Could it be that they believe that there is a moral imperative here?
If so, on what basis can they claim this?
After all Donald Trump has been legally elected President of the United States.
Executive orders are perfectly legal per se (a mistake in my opinion - but there you go!).
Some believe that some or all the contents of that executive order can be successfully overturned by the courts but that has yet to be determined.
Executive orders are only legal if they are founded on law.
The protesters clearly do not like Trump nor do they like his policies but that is neither here nor there and does not form any kind of foundation for a moral imperative.
Clearly they must believe that there is a transcendent principle that is in danger of being violated - in other words some things are always wrong.
Whether this does in fact turn out to be the case is also still to be determined.
Nonetheless, these protests are meaningless on every level apart from the moral level.
This is an absolutely astounding comment. This nation has a rich history of non-meaningless protests. You can only evaluate whether they are meaningless by a historical examination of causality. Some people are protesting that Trump release his tax returns, some are protesting his cabinet appointments which are execrable in some cases, etc. We don't know the impact of these protests but if one were to adopt a view that protest is meaningless one is no better than a lemming following the rest of them over the cliff.
Donald Trump is not breaking the law (or this has not been shown to be the case yet - and I am pretty sure he would not have taken this step if had been advised that this order could and would overturned on constitutional grounds at a flick of some judges pen).
You might be assuming way too much.
-
Law and morality are exceptionally poor bed-fellows!
Not by design, only by lack of design or competing interests. Laws are, roughly speaking, the codification of a society's morals. They lag (or sometimes lead) the overall mood of the power base (be that the ruler or the people, or more usually something in between for democracies).
Common law, particularly as it is in Commonwealth countries, provides further moulding of laws to meet the moral attitudes of the time.
-
I was calling out a misstatement of history.
That does not change the point!
There is ample historical documentation that many did not believe his politics would lead to the Holocaust.
Who said anything about the Holocaust?
The Holocaust was pure evil, no doubt about it, but on the scale of events of the entire lifespan of Nazi Germany, a minor event co-synchronous with the decimation of whole countries, and a truly horrifying death toll.
The German people knew exactly what Hitler was about. They signed up for creating a state based on extreme racial prejudice, offensive wars of conquest, and the enslavement of any nationality or ethnic group deemed inferior.
The fact that many Germans might have been optimistic and did not want to consider the ultimate consequences of what this meant is neither here nor there.
Yes he believes he has a mandate. He is also delusional in being preoccupied with lots of unrelated stuff such as the weather on inauguration day, the size of the crowd, the number of fraudulent voters, etc.
He may or may not be delusional. I think we should both leave it to the psychiatrists to pronounce on his mental health.
Executive orders are only legal if they are founded on law.
See below.
This is an absolutely astounding comment. This nation has a rich history of non-meaningless protests. You can only evaluate whether they are meaningless by a historical examination of causality. Some people are protesting that Trump release his tax returns, some are protesting his cabinet appointments which are execrable in some cases, etc. We don't know the impact of these protests but if one were to adopt a view that protest is meaningless one is no better than a lemming following the rest of them over the cliff.
Are you assuming that I am stating that those protests are meaningless?
I think you need to re-read what I actually wrote!
I happen to think that they are far from meaningless - precisely because they are based on a moral imperative.
You might be assuming way too much.
In many legal jurisdictions there is a principle of an assumption of innocence - even if an individual is actually charged with a crime.
Am I to assume that you don't believe in this principle?
Whether the executive order is legal or not, and whether Donald Trump is guilty of a crime is yet to be determined.
I personally do not like what Trump is doing, but whether there is a legal case to be made against that executive order or against the man personally, never mind a reversal of the order or even a pronouncement of guilt for some legal contravention by Trump, is yet to be determined.
Are you willing to state publicly that Trump is actually a criminal?
Do you actually have any proof of wrongdoing?
Or, do you just feel, like me, that his actions are silly, distasteful, and un-constructive?
I was not making any assumptions - there is no current legal proof of wrongdoing.
I have highlighted various events to discuss issues pertaining to morality and its meaning.
I have no doubt that many of the people currently protesting against Trump have professed beliefs that deny the existence of a transcendent morality, yet, their actual actions tend to betray the existence of another reality.
Tony Jay
-
Not by design, only by lack of design or competing interests. Laws are, roughly speaking, the codification of a society's morals. They lag (or sometimes lead) the overall mood of the power base (be that the ruler or the people, or more usually something in between for democracies).
Common law, particularly as it is in Commonwealth countries, provides further moulding of laws to meet the moral attitudes of the time.
Phil,
Well said. It might also be said as a generalization, that they reflect the "consensus" among the governed in democracies. As you point out, sometimes the law is ahead of the consensus and sometimes it lags behind. One of the disturbing aspects of current western philosophy and culture is that the post-modern conception of "all power (i.e. as reflected in law) is the mere exercise of the ruling metanarrative." This, with the assumption that there is no "transcendent signified" in any law due to the absolute relativism that is embraced in post-modernism (get the operative notion - "absolute relativism?" LOL). To my way of thinking this is like blowing up the foundation pillars of a bridge while everyone is fussing over whether to put bicycle lanes in the traffic pattern on the bridge deck.
Rand
-
You misunderstand. Again. I did not say an atheist or a materialist can't lead a moral life. And that has never been the point. I have said only that without some form of absolute moral authority then it is logically inconsistent to believe that absolute morals exist. If absolute morals don't exist then no morals are absolute. They are all open for interpretation by individuals or groups. Simple.
George,
I know your above comment is in reply to Alan Goldhammer, but I'm a bit puzzled by your insistence that an absolute moral authority can exist in realty.
Everything that can be apprehended or perceived in any way is an interpretation.
There is not a thought, nor an understanding, nor an awareness, nor a perception through our senses of anything whatsoever which is not an interpretation.
The description or understanding of anything as being an 'absolute', is also an interpretation.
Those of use who use Photoshop might tend to think that a particular shade of color can be mathematically defined in an absolute way, using specific RGB values within a well-defined color space, such as ProPhoto RGB, or sRGB
However, the perception of the color always has to be interpreted through the mind and brain. Even when everything external to us that is associated with good calibration and color accuracy is constant, such as the quality of the monitor and its calibration, the color space or profile used, and the quality of the external lighting in the environment where we are viewing the color, the perception of a specific shade of color with specific RGB values can vary significantly depending on its position within the image that we are viewing, and its proximity to adjacent shades in the image.
For example, a shade of grey which is definitely grey in accordance with its RGB values, such as 150, 150, 150, might be perceived as being pure white because of its proximity to solid blacks in the image and the lack of any lighter shades of grey in the image.
However, that same shade of grey placed next to much lighter shades of grey, say 240,240,240, will then change its appearance and look as though it really is grey.
There are numerous examples on the internet demonstrating this phenomenon, and those who view such images in Photoshop can verify for themselves, using the info panel and the eyedropper tool, that different areas in the same image which appear to be different shades of color, have exactly the same RGB values.
This photographic analogy is very relevant because it demonstrates the variability in interpretation even when everything is constant; ie. same color space, same RGB values, same monitor, same calibration, same external lighting, and very significantly, the same person or viewer.
Imagine how much more variable the interpretations can become if one includes different viewers with their own individual responses to the perception of color.
-
George,
I know your above comment is in reply to Alan Goldhammer, but I'm a bit puzzled by your insistence that an absolute moral authority can exist in realty.
I haven't been thinking about this thread for the last few days and it is a long thread.......so I might be wrong about this.....but I don't think I have been insisting that there is an absolute moral authority. (I believe there is but I have tried to keep my beliefs out of this). So I think you might be misappropriating what I have been trying to say.....which seems to be a problem here....probably my fault.
I've tried to get my point across is so many ways. It is actually very simple. But maybe this is the opportunity to say it as simply as possible:
If there is no absolute moral authority then there are no absolute morals.
I don't think it can be broken down any further. Does anyone disagree with it? If so, on what grounds? And AGAIN, individual ideas about what is moral or group consensus about what is moral are not absolute. And it has been made clear that the existence of a law is not the same as a moral.
The consequences of there being no moral authority are what seems to get everyone's dander up. The consequence is that if morals are not absolute then they are relative. If they are relative they are open to interpretation. To assert that morals are open to interpretation AND absolute is logically inconsistent.
-
I haven't been thinking about this thread for the last few days and it is a long thread.......so I might be wrong about this.....but I don't think I have been insisting that there is an absolute moral authority. (I believe there is but I have tried to keep my beliefs out of this). So I think you might be misappropriating what I have been trying to say.....which seems to be a problem here....probably my fault.
I guess that was purely my interpretation of what you've written, whether right or wrong. Sorry if you think I've misinterpreted. ;)
I've tried to get my point across is so many ways. It is actually very simple. But maybe this is the opportunity to say it as simply as possible:
If there is no absolute moral authority then there are no absolute morals.
The consequences of there being no moral authority are what seems to get everyone's dander up. The consequence is that if morals are not absolute then they are relative. If they are relative they are open to interpretation. To assert that morals are open to interpretation AND absolute is logically inconsistent.
As I've already mentioned, everything we experience is an interpretation. We can only experience and interpret external reality in accordance with the limits of the human organism, and the designs of our sensory receptors and intellect.
For example, most people would assert that a leaf is green. In doing so they are projecting their own impressions onto the leaf. The reality is, from our scientific understanding of the issue, a leaf has no color. It has the property of reflecting certain wavelengths of light that the human mind interprets as the color green.
The color exists only in the human mind, and that applies to the color of all objects we see. Whatever the color, or shade of grey, it has no external reality. It's no more than an interpretation by the human brain of a reflected wavelength of light.
Likewise, there is a similar situation with the concepts of 'absolute', 'moral' and 'authority'. They are all constructs of the human mind. They all exist only to the extent that they occupy human thoughts.
-
As I've already mentioned, everything we experience is an interpretation. We can only experience and interpret external reality in accordance with the limits of the human organism, and the designs of our sensory receptors and intellect.
Okay. But I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that we cannot ever actually "know" anything as it actually is. Like all ideas and philosophies this too has consequences. This leads to complete relativism. Nothing is knowable. No truth. No morals. Even the hope of any meaningful interaction between humans is dim. Thomas Wolf shared this view:
“. . . a stone, a leaf, an unfound door; a stone, a leaf, a door. And of all the forgotten faces.
Naked and alone we came into exile. In her dark womb we did not know our mother's face; from the prison of her flesh have we come into the unspeakable and incommunicable prison of this earth.
Which of us has known his brother? Which of us has looked into his father's heart? Which of us has not remained forever prison-pent? Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone?
O waste of lost, in the hot mazes, lost, among bright stars on this weary, unbright cinder, lost! Remembering speechlessly we seek the great forgotten language, the lost lane-end into heaven, a stone, a leaf, an unfound door. Where? When?
O lost, and by the wind grieved, ghost, come back again.”
― Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward, Angel
Likewise, there is a similar situation with the concepts of 'absolute', 'moral' and 'authority'. They are all constructs of the human mind. They all exist only to the extent that they occupy human thoughts.
From a materialist world view you are absolutely correct. And any 'thing' that exists only as a human thought is ephemeral and, in the grand scheme of things, whimsical including 'morals'. And in that regard the thought of any one human is as valid as the thought of any other. One may interpret slavery as moral. Another may not. Neither is wrong. It is just their interpretation of right and wrong. By your definition it is logically inconsistent to say that one of them is absolutely right and one is absolutely wrong. That is the materialist and existentialist dilemma. Which is my point.
-
From a materialist world view you are absolutely correct. And any 'thing' that exists only as a human thought is ephemeral and, in the grand scheme of things, whimsical including 'morals'. And in that regard the thought of any one human is as valid as the thought of any other. One may interpret slavery as moral. Another may not. Neither is wrong. It is just their interpretation of right and wrong. By your definition it is logically inconsistent to say that one of them is absolutely right and one is absolutely wrong. That is the materialist and existentialist dilemma. Which is my point.
Some room, I think, needs to be carved out for the idea of natural law or inherent revealed rights, which might be derived not from a deity necessarily, but from the simple fact of being. Descartes argued this far better than I ever could, but perhaps there is a "third way" that lies between morality via fiat from above and the law of the jungle?
-
There is - authoritative morality derived through consensus (societal) - usually codified as laws. It sits between pure absolute and pure relative morality.
-
Some room, I think, needs to be carved out for the idea of natural law
Yes. A complicated subject. Dr. Sam Harris has written a book about this. He is an atheist. Dr. William Lane Craig has pretty much refuted arguments from natural law (in debates with Harris). They are based primarily on what is good for the herd as evolutionarily advantageous. In this way Harris sort of ignores the idea of what a moral is and redefines what good means. It really does not take much to see the weaknesses of such a basis for morality.
or inherent revealed rights, which might be derived not from a deity necessarily, but from the simple fact of being.
Not familiar with this argument but in the end sounds no more logically sound (from a materialist viewpoint) than invoking a deity. It is a search for something with transcendental properties without being transcendental.
but perhaps there is a "third way" that lies between morality via fiat from above and the law of the jungle?
I think that if there is a creator then the law of the jungle still informs morality but possibly does not define it?
-
There is - authoritative morality derived through consensus (societal) - usually codified as laws. It sits between pure absolute and pure relative morality.
We've beat that horse to death haven't we? Chattel slavery in the U.S. was derived through societal consensus and codified as law. If that is the standard for morality then slavery was moral and could be again. All we'd have to do is agree with it and pass laws. So that doesn't work.
And I don't really see how anything can sit between absolute and relative. That's akin to being sort of pregnant. If it isn't absolute it is relative. If it is relative it is......relative.
-
The bible made slavery legal, too.
That's the point of being not absolute and not entirely relative - there is some inertia relating to it being a group decision and authority. You're judging future possible morality by your own standard, which is not relevant to an authoritative or absolute morality (only a relative one).
-
Okay. But I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that we cannot ever actually "know" anything as it actually is.
In a sense, what I'm saying is so obvious that it's undeniable through any process of logic or reasoning. All our knowledge of what anything 'actually is' is dependent upon how the human organism, with its various sensory receptors, reacts or responds to the stimuli it receives from its surroundings, or the specific object under investigation..
Through our development of science we have been able to extend our sensory perception and indirectly detect a huge range of frequencies that were previously invisible to us, such as X-rays and radio waves, and are able to extend our vision through the construction of gigantic, powerful telescopes that enable us to pick up and amplify extremely faint signals from outer space which can provide a picture of distant objects that were previously invisible to us, and so on.
Through this process of scientific inquiry using sophisticated technology, we get a much more detailed understanding of the environment that surrounds us, including our own body and brain. However, the main point I'm making is that that knowledge, however detailed, is always an impression in the human mind. Even when we get data from a computerised machine that one might imagine is totally objective, the machine has been designed and programmed by the human mind, and the resulting data which is gathered has to be interpreted by the human mind for the data to be meaningful.
How anything actually is, independent of at least some degree of contamination (for want of a better word) from the human mind, is impossible to know. Okay?
Like all ideas and philosophies this too has consequences. This leads to complete relativism. Nothing is knowable. No truth. No morals. Even the hope of any meaningful interaction between humans is dim. Thomas Wolf shared this view:
That's a moving poem which is very sad but also pessimistic. However, I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist. The troubles of the world are due to a general failure to understand that at an individual level all our opinions and impressions are influenced by our conditioning from the time we were in our mother's womb, including all the cultural and educational influences that we've been exposed to throughout our life, and all traumatic experiences we've suppressed, which might continue to influence us in ways we are not aware of.
However, having accepted that this is the case, and even after having surmounted any major problems and biases, let's not kid ourselves that our views and opinions can be totally unbiased and objective so that we can see reality as it actually is. We're still conditioned by our general human characteristics which our survival depends upon.
From a materialist world view you are absolutely correct. And any 'thing' that exists only as a human thought is ephemeral and, in the grand scheme of things, whimsical including 'morals'.
I can't follow the logic of your reasoning here. Because something exists only as a human thought, surely it does not necessarily follow that it must therefore be whimsical and ephemeral. It might be, but would you seriously claim that the discipline of mathematics is whimsical because it exists only in the mind, and stored in text books and on computers which have to be interpreted by the mind.
Perhaps you don't agree that mathematics exists only in the human mind. Have you ever seen Pythagoras's Theorem hanging from the branch of a tree? ;D
And in that regard the thought of any one human is as valid as the thought of any other.
Surely that can't be right. Let's say two people are walking along a path and both notice irregularities in the path, which is a bit rough.. One person has the thought, 'I'd better be careful and walk slowly'. The other person has the thought, 'I've walked over similar terrain before. No problem. I can manage this easily'. So the other person streaks ahead, perhaps also showing off, trips over a boulder, smashes his head on another boulder as he falls, and dies.
Would you claim that the thoughts of these two travelers, regarding the path they were walking on, were equally valid?
-
The bible made slavery legal, too.....
chapter and verse please...
-
"Perhaps you don't agree that mathematics exists only in the human mind. Have you ever seen Pythagoras's Theorem hanging from the branch of a tree? ;D" ............. Ray
Well, I have seen, personally, with all my visual senses, objective, subjective and possibly (but not necessarily) creative, too, several triangles on display on the edge of the nearest motorway; however, as they included no 90° angle, perhaps they would be disqualified. Yet, with a little extrapolation of thought, a good case for believing this represents both the physical as well as metaphysical display of the Napoleonic Theorem of triangulation might be held to hold sway in the above roadway observations referrred to herein.
This could form the basis if a fine, convincing Artist's Statement, could it not?
Rob
-
chapter and verse please...
Leviticus 25: 44-46 is one good citation and perhaps most egrigious, Exodus 21:7-11 regarding selling a daughter into slavery.
-
The bible made slavery legal, too.
First, complicated issue as this was usually bond slavery, not chattel slavery. Being in the military is about the same as bond slavery (BTDT). Also, from a Christian point of view the Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding. References in the New Testament refer to slavery but do not condone it.
That's the point of being not absolute and not entirely relative - there is some inertia relating to it being a group decision and authority.
That inertia is supplied only by the threat of violence. Without that threat it becomes immaterial.
You're judging future possible morality by your own standard, which is not relevant to an authoritative or absolute morality (only a relative one).
Nope. I'm only judging logical consistency here. I've not taken any overt position on what is and is not moral.
-
How anything actually is, independent of at least some degree of contamination (for want of a better word) from the human mind, is impossible to know. Okay?
Yes. I understand that. I disagree with it and can make arguments against it, but they are tedious and in the domain of pure epistemology. But on the surface the premise itself is self defeating. If nothing is knowable then we cannot know that nothing is knowable. It is also fraught with levels of absurdity in regard to how we apply such a philosophy to the act of living. No one lives as if this were true.
Perhaps you don't agree that mathematics exists only in the human mind.
I do not. If at the time of the Big Bang a star was formed, you'd have one star. If a second star formed, you'd have two stars. Whether man is there or not. And this sort of logic also leads to the conclusion that nothing is real at all. It is perfectly possible that what you think of as 'you' is a disembodied mind and everything that you think you have known, seen, felt and perceived are simple neuro-chemical stimuli and in reality nothing exists but you. You cannot disprove this. But no one really believes it and much like the philosophy that the world is unknowable, no one actually acts like they believe it if even if they say they do. It is too absurd. Camu's forte.
Surely that can't be right. Let's say two people are walking along a path and both notice irregularities in the path, which is a bit rough.. One person has the thought, 'I'd better be careful and walk slowly'. The other person has the thought, 'I've walked over similar terrain before. No problem. I can manage this easily'. So the other person streaks ahead, perhaps also showing off, trips over a boulder, smashes his head on another boulder as he falls, and dies.
Would you claim that the thoughts of these two travelers, regarding the path they were walking on, were equally valid?
Your logic is situational. The fast walker might just as well have done fine. The slow walker might have tripped.
-
First, complicated issue as this was usually bond slavery, not chattel slavery. Being in the military is about the same as bond slavery (BTDT). Also, from a Christian point of view the Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding. References in the New Testament refer to slavery but do not condone it.
That's not entirely true. My sister is a professor of Biblical Studies in Israel and we talked about this issue a couple of years ago when she was over here for a visit. Much of the slavery in the middle East was chattel slavery and it was common to all of the various civil groups living at that time.
-
That's not entirely true. My sister is a professor of Biblical Studies in Israel and we talked about this issue a couple of years ago when she was over here for a visit. Much of the slavery in the middle East was chattel slavery and it was common to all of the various civil groups living at that time.
Which is exactly why I said "complicated issue" and "usually". By the time of Christ slavery among the Hebrews was primarily bond slavery. Chattel slavery and the command to utterly destroy their neighbors where primarily aspects of Hebrew life before the settling of Judea. But I do not claim to be an OT scholar. And again, Christian thought holds that the Mosaic law was abrogated by Christ.
And I'm not defending Judeo-Christian morals. Its certainly a valid topic and has its own complications and difficulties and I'm perfectly willing to go down that path but it IS, in fact, another path that does not change my primary contention that if there is no absolute moral authority then there are no absolute morals and to believe that there is no absolute moral authority but that some morals are absolute is logically inconsistent.
No weaknesses associated with believing there is a transcendent moral authority can change the above argument.
-
If at the time of the Big Bang a star was formed, you'd have one star. If a second star formed, you'd have two stars. Whether man is there or not. And this sort of logic also leads to the conclusion that nothing is real at all. It is perfectly possible that what you think of as 'you' is a disembodied mind and everything that you think you have known, seen, felt and perceived are simple neuro-chemical stimuli and in reality nothing exists but you. You cannot disprove this. But no one really believes it and much like the philosophy that the world is unknowable, no one actually acts like they believe it if even if they say they do. It is too absurd. Camu's forte.
This gets to the crux of the issue. What we as English-speaking humans call a star in common language, can be described in many different ways. The word 'star' exists only in the human mind, just as the numerals 1 and 2 exist only in the human mind, but not necessarily in every human mind, and certainly not in the minds of birds and bats and foxes, I'm sure you'll agree. ;D
It is reasonable to presume that the matter that comprises the star will continue to exist in the absence of any human to observe it, and I'm certainly not claiming that this is not the case. That would be foolish. The point I'm making is that precisely how that matter is perceived will vary, depending on the sophistication of the technology used, and the individual characteristics of the viewer. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to determine how something actually is in reality.
For example, it is generally accepted that Dark Matter and Dark Energy comprise about 95% of all the matter in the universe. Today we might look at what we imagine are two separate stars close together in the night sky. However, in a hundred years time, after we've found a way to detect Dark Matter, those two stars might be viewed as one continuous blob or nebula, connected and enlarged through the presence of the previously invisible Dark Matter.
If nothing is knowable then we cannot know that nothing is knowable. It is also fraught with levels of absurdity in regard to how we apply such a philosophy to the act of living. No one lives as if this were true.
You're falling into the trap of thinking in terms of the duality of 'either/or, as though we either know something or we don't. What we know about any one thing or person, is just a tiny proportion of what there is to know.
We use the word 'know' frequently ín the context of 'recognise'. When I say I know my neighbour, I mean that I know his name and can recognise him and I'm aware of certain characteristics he has and perhaps a few stories he's told. In terms of a full knowledge of the human being who is my neighbour, my knowledge is extremely limited.
So the term, 'nothing is knowable' actually means (logically and sensibly) 'nothing is fully knowable in all its facets and connections'.
A couple of hundred years ago (or a bit more) we could only detect that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we call light, which represents about 0.0035% of the entire spectrum from the lowest radio waves to the shortest Gamma rays. (Calculated on a linear scale.)
In modern times we have progressed to the point where we think we can detect (potentially) as much as 5% of the matter and energy that surrounds us, but we're not certain about that. Such is progress.
Of course we can't fully know anything. How could you argue otherwise? ;)
Your logic is situational. The fast walker might just as well have done fine. The slow walker might have tripped.
You missed my point. Whoever trips in this hypothetical example is irrelevant. The relevance is the connection between the tripping and the thought processes. If the accident has no bearing on thought processes, because it's a natural and unpredictable event like a bolt of lightning that neither person has protection against, then my example would not apply.
In my example, I am assuming that thought processes are involved in the safe trekking along a rough track, and therefore all thoughts are not equally valid. Okay? ;)
-
N80 - I'm not arguing that there are any absolute moral points in the absence of absolute morality. Of course there are not. So called innate or natural rights are societal constructs evolved from basic human requirements for survival. They are available now, really, as authoritative morality.
With regard to your suggestion that the only way to enforce authoritative morality is through violence, it really depends on your definition of violence. Ultimately, it is the threat of exclusion or punishment. Certainly punishment is violent in one way or another, but exclusion need not always be. Nonetheless, authoritative morality is a logically consistent and demonstrably exists and disproves the assertion that the absence of absolute morality leaves only relative morality.
The key, really, is to understand that there are no natural or innate rights that exist outside of evolutionary requirements for survival.
-
chapter and verse please...
Leviticus 25:44-46
Colossians 4:1
Ephesians 6:5
Exodus 21:20-21
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18
Exodus 21:26-27
Exodus 21:1-36
Deuteronomy 23:15
1 Corinthians 7:21
Romans 6:16
Colossians 3:22
Leviticus 19:20
Leviticus 22:11
1 Timothy 6:1-2
-
Mentions of the reality of slavery (howsoever defined) in the Bible do not in any way "legalise" it.
I am disinclined to try and argue this out on a verse-by-verse basis in a forum such as this.
(As such I actually regret that particular post.)
With respect to the argument on morality put to N80:
If what you say is true then you (and all of the rest of us for that matter) have absolutely no right (another meaningless term) to complain when any form of criminal activity or immoral (meaningless concept, actually , if you are correct) conduct is perpetrated against you because the perpetrator would love to use your exact argument to prove his innocence - after all, all he or she was doing was exercising their evolutionary prerogative to get ahead, the fact that it was at your expense is neither here nor there, you would just become a victim of evolutionary chance, rather than a victim of crime with a case for justice.
I put it to you that the logical conclusions of such an argument are completely absurd and in no way reflect the reality of day-to-day living.
Something like this can exist in an intellectual test-tube but in the real world is just fantasy.
Tony Jay
-
Tony - I didn't list every mention of slavery, I only picked a large number that either tacitly or implicitly approve of slavery (which at the time is to have the effect of recognising it as both legal and morally acceptable - the latter point being the basis for legality in the view of many, such as some arguments put forth in this thread).
I agree that taking every single chapter and verse is pointless and certainly some of the references I mentioned are not as strong on the primary point.\
But let me take just three that specifically approve of slavery:
Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Here, we are told that slavery is fine, that slaves are possessions forever, so long as you exclude Israelites. That's very clear. It mentions buying them, it mentions males and females, it says foreigners born locally are OK, it says they are possessions forever and can be passed down to your sons.
Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,
Explicitly telling slaves to obey their masters.
Exodus 21:20-21
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
It's OK to beat your slaves, just not kill them. The slave is money. Clearly, there is no moral or legal objection to slaves, just to killing them (or not hurting them so badly that they die within 2 days - if it takes longer, it's OK...).
And a bonus one:
Titus 2:9-10
Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
Be a good slave in order to support the doctrine of God. It's far from being ambiguous or unclear.
And as a double bonus, Peter tells is that even unjust masters are OK:
1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.
The bible is NOT a source of absolute morality. It meanders all over the place, it represents the reality of the cultures and politics of the time. It represented the will of the majority of the power (not the people, since they were not empowered generally). It is an authoritative morality.
And as a final, triple bonus (because seriously, there's just too many to pass up):
Exodus 21:1-36
“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ ...
It specifically says "rules that you shall set before them". It's prescribing what the law should be.
Honestly, if that's not legalising or providing a morality guide as to the acceptability of slavery, in chapter and verse in the bible, then I think you're reading a different book.
As your analysis of my argument to N80. No, that's not what I said. What you are describing is moral relativism (an extreme version). My point about authoritative morality is that it carries the weight of the society and if someone acts against that (some criminal activity) then I am able to appeal to the authoritative morality of society to prosecute the guilty party.
Moreover, this is EXACTLY what happens in the real world. You don't get to go to court and say "The bible says I can buy Hebrew slaves so long as I set them free after 7 years and the bible is the word of God and therefore an absolute morality that you must accept". Society says that's bollocks and you can't have slaves and so the authoritative morality, which is empowered by society, is the relevant guide. Similarly, you don't get to say "I have a natural right to liberty and therefore you cannot gaol me for breaking a law". Well, you can say it, but society rejects it - your claim of a natural right is nothing more than a claim (I'm using "you" in a generic sense here, for clarity). The only effective authority is society, hence authoritative morality (being neither relative - it's not individual and it has inertia) and is not absolute because it can change.
-
I am not going to reply to the issue on slavery in the Bible - as I said.
To say, in any way, that morality is merely the product of public opinion, and laws constructed on that opinion - is not morality, it is merely fashion.
Not so long ago slavery was both legal and socially acceptable in both the British Empire and what has now become the United States. By your own measure it was completely moral!
That fact that slavery is no longer legally practised in those places was never due to a mass action effect.
It took a long and determined effort by a very few individuals against prevailing public opinion, convinced that slavery represented evil and immorality in any age and any circumstance to change things. This was especially the case in Britain.
Even in the USA, the American Civil War, although presented purely as a moral crusade against slavery by some, was, in fact, much more complicated in its genesis. Yes, the emancipation of slaves was one result of that conflict but it was never the primary reason for the war.
It is clear that you live currently in a country where you believe your views on morality and law work, perhaps not perfectly, but the situation is workable.
However, I grew up in a country where the whole basis for government and law was based on an immoral presumption. This presumption was not immoral just because it became fashionable to criticise it in 60's, 70's and 80's. It was immoral because it has always been wrong. I am talking about Apartheid - government and law based on racial discrimination. The presumption was that one race was naturally superior to another. Frankly, this view was entirely socially acceptable and legal almost all around the world and certainly in Europe and North America for a long time.
(I think it is still a very prevalent view around the world and certainly in both Europe and North America even if it is not legal in most places.)
Apartheid was not a 20th century invention. It was a natural continuation of a system first imposed by Dutch, and later British, colonial administrators. It's details changed over time but what has become known as Grand Apartheid was the implementation of a post Second World War National Party government's plan to formalise and rigorously impose a system already centuries old.
In my opinion what is called Apartheid was wrong centuries before it became fashionable to criticise it because I do believe that for morality to be morality it has to be transcendent.
But, by your measure, had you been alive in the 19th century in particular, racism and its consequences would have been moral simply because it enjoyed widespread public acknowledgement as a normal attitude to have and laws enacted to enforce racism would have been just.
Furthermore, by your measure, it would have been wrong to oppose these attitudes and laws precisely because it would have meant going against prevailing public opinion - effective authority - in your terminology.
Furthermore, just because a society, now holds a particular view of the world with laws to match, by your measure they are in no position to criticise another society with different views also with laws to match, nor try to impose one's views on that society, because their views are just as valid, even if totally incompatible with one's views.
Morality is just not a product of evolution.
Rights do not exist just inside "evolutionary requirements for survival" - your words.
Unless you meant that in evolutionary terms that there are no rights!
To try and describe morality in terms of evolution is the ultimate oxymoron - a complete contradiction in terms.
Evolutionary theory, by its definition, cannot recognise events in terms of good and evil, justice and injustice, morality and immorality.
In evolutionary theory these concepts have no meaning, they are non-things - non-sense.
I can assure you that I do not believe that I have a "natural right to liberty" (your terminology) on any basis, biblical or otherwise, in any and every circumstance. I believe in a transcendent morality and I believe that are consequences to immorality as a result. I believe that transcendent morality does stand in judgement of society as whole, individual action, and laws and legal systems. I could care less whether immorality is coded as law - that does not make it moral. The fact that many (most) in society might accept a particular immoral and unjust law does not make it moral (or just) either. The fact that a great injustice can be actually perpetrated, and justified on the basis of law, does not make that act moral.
Your views, I believe, are essentially contradictory.
Morality, as a concept, does not have a logical definition sans a transcendent authority.
You have protested the example I gave, in my last post, as extreme.
I fully understand that you do not want, nor believe, that your beliefs end up there in that situation - but they do.
The logical conclusion is exactly the situation that "morality" devolves to an opinion.
That opinion can be held individually or corporately, but it is an opinion.
And opinions can change, are subject to all sorts of influences that results in opinions changing, and the resultant change in opinion suffers from the same weakness as before - it is no better nor no worse than the aforeheld position: it is merely an opinion.
For morality to be morality there has to be a transcendent base - in other words certain things are wrong at all times and in all circumstances. Public opinion, by definition, cannot change that.
Without the transcendent quality, morality actually not only devolves merely to opinion, but also to the unpalatable situation of "might is right." In other words any person and group who actually has the power to enforce their opinions on others automatically governs the "moral" status quo.
I don't know about you but I heartily reject any suggestion that merely because someone has some sort of power over me (name your scenario!) that this gives them the moral ascendency and the right to call the shots and decide what morality is.
As far as I am concerned your views would have to endorse the "might is right" approach.
N80 has dealt with this issue in this or another thread (too much to read back on) as well from a slightly different perspective.
Tony Jay
-
You don't need to reply on the issue of slavery in the bible. The answer is demonstrably as I said it was.
In regard to the rest of your response, you keep invoking logic. However, not once have you shown a logical nexus to support your point (or to speak against mine). Just saying that something is logical because it fits your paradigm does not, unsurprisingly, make it logical.
Notwithstanding that, your appeal to a transcendent moral source is, by definition, not logical. It cannot be tested, it cannot be assessed - it is not a philosophical matter, but rather a theological one, to use your transcendent source. So the two concepts are not directly reconcilable.
To answer your question about slavery. Yes, slavery was authoritatively moral at various times and places in history (and was, at the same time, relatively moral and immoral). Of interest, despite your refusal to discuss it, is that even your transcendent (theological) source accepted slavery as moral.
In discussing apartheid, you are again assigning your relative moral values on to others. At the time, it was authoritatively moral. It was relatively moral and immoral.
You're right - there is no good and evil in evolution. There is no absolute good and evil. There is only what we perceive as good or evil and that is developed through evolution as we determined what we need to survive as a social animal.
At no time have I suggested that because someone has power over me that they have moral ascendency, because I have no discussed any rank of one morality versus another. To do that we need to move into a discussion of ethical lenses, which is indeed an interesting topic.
I'll leave you with this: Is it moral for a transcendent authority to not make every one equally aware of the absolute morals that exist?
-
Actually, I am not trying to "prove" that appealing to a transcendental morality is logical.
That is a completely different discussion.
What I have said, and continue to say is that your view is illogical because its internal argument is contradictory.
A moral viewpoint that devolves to individual opinion, whether expressed individually, or corporately, is not morality, it is an opinion, and as such, sits alongside every other opinion with equal validity, whether they are compatible or not.
To say that there is no absolute good or evil does your argument a disservice - there is no good or evil period - according to your belief system. That can be the only logical conclusion to draw.
The theory of evolution knows no concept of good or evil, the moral or immoral.
There are merely events that discriminate between evolutionary success and failure - no more and no less.
As I said these concepts (morality, good and evil) are non-things - non-sense in an evolutionary context.
You appear to be the one assigning value to concepts that actually have absolutely no place in your worldview!
Tony Jay
-
I wonder if anyone is still able to keep track?
From conflicting versions of creation we have trawled the Bible; realised, with flashes, petards and a roll of thunder, the atavistic thought behind the Israeli settlements in Arab lands and the "divine" logic prevailing there; appreciated that slavery is only slavery when defined in a particular manner and that, clearly, all people are indeed not created equal if they can be morally and legally enslaved and/or their lands simply taken from them under the very noses of the rest of the civilized world which seems incapable unwilling to care enough to say stop! enough, already. But then they wouldn't would they? Even, of course, if what's going down is morally reprehensible, for morality is but a concept like any other, isn't it?
We've learned that morality is absolute, that morality is comparative; that morality has a divine provenance; that morality is but an artificial and convenient concept to facilitate survival; that ¡t does not exist - indeed that, possibly, we do not exist either but as figments of a single or, alternatively, group dream. (My own dreams are turning out to be rather expensive in real/absolute/imaginary terms. I do hope there's a waking up call at some time, at least before the money tree falls down or bursts into flame and/or turns out to have been just another low shrub with a glow behind it, which it seems might have been the case all along, whether I approved, realised it or not. Parlous times.)
As HC-B said: "geometry!" Without geometry there is no art, there is no picture; and boy, do we have geometry here: circles.
And to think the genesis of all of this was a bout of rotten weather sweeping Mallorca.
Rob
-
Tony:
Hardly.
Morality concerns principles that distinguish between right and wrong or good and bad (behaviour, being, systems, whatever you want to cover). It presents a system of principles and values to govern (or just guide) conduct.
Once there is no absolute morality (and there is no evidence to support such a conclusion, only belief - and you haven't addressed whether the lack of presentation of an absolute morality by a transcendent source is moral or not), then yes, of course, morality is opinion. That's the point. It evolves as we have evolved. That's why it can differ from group to group. Of course, all claims of absolute morality currently are also subject to differences and variances - which really makes it difficult to accept that any of them are absolute, of course. Gee, it would seem they were nothing more than opinions, perhaps even shared ones by large groups...
Anyway, my point is entirely logically consistent. Our species evolves general moral principles which contribute to survival. As the environment (general, not just ecological) changes, so our species adapts and evolves and so does morality. The bible is one of the great proofs of this evolution, ironically, because it details so clearly matters of morality that are now different and that at the time would have been argued as absolutely right but are now considered absolutely wrong.
Now, to move on from here, we need to look at ethical lenses to understand the basis for viewing or believing certain moral principles and for a process by which to effectively validate or rank them. There are many schools of thought in this area, each presenting different focuses and processes.
-
With respect there is no moving on.
If you wish to skip over the contradictions in the argument you put forward that is fine.
However, the issues are not adequately addressed.
I have no wish to try and batter you into submission, to execute, or try, a form of intellectual assassination - particularly in the fashion that I have seen employed on this forum.
It is not my style.
Perhaps you or others may mock me for giving up, being weak, being wrong, whatever.
I have made a particular point, and in the same way as when offering technical advice, anybody can accept or reject it as they see fit. It doesn't matter to me - I am prepared to help, as I can, but I am not really interested in forcing people to my point of view.
Maybe N80 will continue to debate the issue but obviously that is his prerogative.
Tony Jay
-
I wouldn't consider you weak for not responding or anything of the kind. This a message board. It's not important.
However, if you truly believe there are issues which I have not addressed, then feel free to list them and I'll probably respond, but just saying my point is not logical isn't going to cut it. I've shown a causal nexus and a logical progression and link between concepts. They may be wrong, but just saying so doesn't make them so. You need to be able to show how those links and causal relationships are either wrong or subject to different interpretation that is more acceptable or more likely.
Until then, I'm sorry, but you've said very little beyond "I believe", and there's no logical in that. So if that is indeed your point, then of course I have no argument - if you say you believe then I believe you, but it doesn't make you right and it isn't the basis for any philosophical discussion, only theological (and I have little interest in what I consider to be largely fairy tales (in their true and original intent, certainly, but still fairy tales)).
-
Cameroon won. Isn't that nice?
Rob C
-
With respect there is no moving on.
If you wish to skip over the contradictions in the argument you put forward that is fine.
However, the issues are not adequately addressed.
I have no wish to try and batter you into submission, to execute, or try, a form of intellectual assassination - particularly in the fashion that I have seen employed on this forum.
It is not my style.
Perhaps you or others may mock me for giving up, being weak, being wrong, whatever.
I have made a particular point, and in the same way as when offering technical advice, anybody can accept or reject it as they see fit. It doesn't matter to me - I am prepared to help, as I can, but I am not really interested in forcing people to my point of view.
Maybe N80 will continue to debate the issue but obviously that is his prerogative.
Tony Jay
Well said, Tony. I agree with your earlier comment on internal inconsistency in the arguments presented. It is also important to remember that the intent of the questioner is perhaps as, or more, important than the content of the question. To those who posit that there are no absolutes, I would only ask, "Are you absolutely sure about that?" And if so, on what grounds?
Rand
-
Cameroon won. Isn't that nice?
Rob C
And last season's EPL Champions, Leicester, may soon be in a relegation battle!
-
Well said, Tony. I agree with your earlier comment on internal inconsistency in the arguments presented. It is also important to remember that the intent of the questioner is perhaps as, or more, important than the content of the question. To those who posit that there are no absolutes, I would only ask, "Are you absolutely sure about that?" And if so, on what grounds?
You're asking to prove a negative, which is a fallacy. If there is an absolute, then prove it. Until you can do that, there is no evidence to show that there is an absolute morality and it is therefore logically consistent to refute such a claim.
As to the "internal inconsistency in the arguments presented" - list them.
-
You're asking to prove a negative, which is a fallacy. If there is an absolute, then prove it. Until you can do that, there is no evidence to show that there is an absolute morality and it is therefore logically consistent to refute such a claim.
As to the "internal inconsistency in the arguments presented" - list them.
Hi Phil,
But don't you see that claiming that there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute statement? And, therefore, logically circular? Making the claim "no absolutes" is, in itself, a claim to total knowledge. That was my point. I believe there is an inference to absolutes, I offered earlier that "killing infants only for the fun of it" comes pretty close in human experience. While there have been societies that sacrificed children in rituals, etc., there was at least an "intended efficacy" in those rituals. "Only for the fun of it" puts it in a context that, to the best of my knowledge, "transcends" mere human preference and infers a transcendent moral. Now, one might claim that evolutionary forces got us to this place, but in competing tribal situations, killing for the fun of it might indeed have a survival benefit for the tribe who would embrace this notion.
Rand
-
But don't you see that claiming that there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute statement?
Has anyone claimed in this thread that there are no absolutes, period? If so, I must have missed that.
Those of us with even a very basic knowledge of Physics would probably accept that there is an absolute minimum temperature, known as 'absolute zero', or -273.15 degrees C. Apparently, this is the point at which the fundamental particles of nature have minimal vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion.
Now it's quite in order for someone to speculate or hypothesize that there might exist an 'absolute morality'. However, demonstrating the existence of such an 'absolute morality' would be very problematical, and perhaps impossible, without a very clear and precise definition of what morality is.
Without such a clear and precise definition, we can have no more than a range of unsubstantiated opinions. For example, a number of individuals in a group at a particular location on a particular day would probably express different opinions about the temperature. Some might say it feels rather hot and uncomfortable. Others might say it feels just right, and yet others who are used to living in the hot, steamy tropics might express the opinion that it's rather cool. So who's right?
If there's an accurate thermometer in the room, we can determine that the temperature is approximately 28 degrees C, for example. There can be no argument about that.
Tony Jay seems to be of the view that 'certain things are wrong at all times in all circumstances', and that this is the basis for the existence of a transcendent, absolute morality. But can such a view be substantiated with practical examples?
In science, if one finds exceptions to any particular theory, then the theory is considered to be faulty, inaccurate or even plain wrong, without another satisfactory explanation for the exceptions.
Let's consider the example of slavery. Is it right or wrong? Is it moral or immoral? To answer 'yes' or 'no' to such questions is to fall into the false duality of either/or, like, for example, it's either hot or its cold.
Slavery has existed for millennia. Most ancient civilizations depended upon it. But is all slavery wrong at all times and in all circumstances, as Toy Jay implies?
It is reasonable to presume that there have been many instances throughout history when certain individual slaves have considered themselves to be very fortunate to have been the 'property' of a wealthy and benevolent owner who took good care of his slaves and provided them with the comfort and security that other free, but penniless, people could only dream of.
Which activity is more immoral, the practice of a wealthy business man employing poor people at a 'near starvation' wage, but giving them the freedom to leave their employment despite there being no better options available to them; or the practice of a similarly wealthy person insisting on owning his workers but providing them with a level of comfort, security and accommodation far above the circumstances of the others in the community where they came from?
In other words, whilst slavery in principle can be considered 'less than ideal' and a generally defective law, the more important moral issue is the way people with power and wealth treat those who are poor and less privileged.
Here's an interesting story relevant to this issue. ;)
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/06/slaves-who-liked-slavery/58678/
-
Ray: please read all my posts properly.
My points have nothing do with what I believe, but everything to do with what others were saying about their beliefs on the origin and nature of morality.
Tony Jay
-
Ray: please read all my posts properly.
My points have nothing do with what I believe, but everything to do with what others were saying about their beliefs on the origin and nature of morality.
Tony Jay
Wow! That comment in itself is very confusing. You write things that have nothing to do with what you believe???
Are you presenting arguments based upon a rationality which you do not believe in?
Please clarify your position.
-
Ray, there is nothing confusing or irrational in what I said.
I was never defending my position on the subject under discussion but very clearly querying the logic of arguments put forward by others.
Perhaps you don't get this - but that is not my problem.
The reason I bailed out of this thread was because I was being wilfully misinterpreted, just as you seem hellbent on doing now.
I am disinclined to try and argue the toss.
My post to you was a simple request, so I thought, based on a simple courtesy.
Tony Jay
-
I don't mean to offend, Tony. I can only respond to what I interpret from what I read. If I've misinterpreted your views, then I apologise.
Your comments which were the source of my response, are in your post #219, as follows.
Morality is just not a product of evolution.
Rights do not exist just inside "evolutionary requirements for survival" - your words.
Unless you meant that in evolutionary terms that there are no rights!
To try and describe morality in terms of evolution is the ultimate oxymoron - a complete contradiction in terms.
Evolutionary theory, by its definition, cannot recognise events in terms of good and evil, justice and injustice, morality and immorality.
In evolutionary theory these concepts have no meaning, they are non-things - non-sense.
For morality to be morality there has to be a transcendent base - in other words certain things are wrong at all times and in all circumstances. Public opinion, by definition, cannot change that.
Without the transcendent quality, morality actually not only devolves merely to opinion, but also to the unpalatable situation of "might is right." In other words any person and group who actually has the power to enforce their opinions on others automatically governs the "moral" status quo.
-
Maybe you should properly investigate the meaning of the word "morality".
You are going to find may different definitions based on philosophical viewpoint.
Then you need to ask yourself how and why we have any concept of the idea of morality in the first place - not just you yourself, but humankind through the ages.
The line that you have highlighted, may or may not represent my personal point of view (that was irrelevant to my argument), but rather represents an historical understanding of the word morality. And that in contradistinction to a presented viewpoint of morality that is relative and that can change with one's underwear (somewhat overstated but not by much).
Look at what I said, not as my personal opinion (because I have not ventured that) but rather what it was: a challenge to an illogical argument.
I am not going to add new points - but my request still stands: read the whole thread - a single line out of one post can be made to say anything.
Tony Jay
-
Tony,
I have investigated such issues and formed an opinion which I believe is based upon rationality.
The word 'morality' is a human concept that goes back thousands of years to the times when nobody knew that the earth was a ball encircling the sun, or had any knowledge of the vastness of the earth's surface and its many continents and oceans, and no inkling of the vastness of the universe with it's billions of galaxies and trillions of stars.
I imagine, rightly or wrongly, but with justifiable reason, that our early ancestors who lived in small communities, would have fought with each other for resources, and in particular, the males would have fought to the death for the privilege of exclusively mating with the females.
As the brain size of these early homo sapiens sub-species increased, and language began to form, allowing a degree of conceptual thought, the Albert Einsteins of the times would have realised that a survival advantage could be achieved if the constant bickering, and fighting over females in the group, was subdued.
So those in charge, who were chieftains of the groups with the smartest advisors, gradually realised that in order to expand the size of the group and make it more successful, they would have to impose certain rules of behaviour, such as forbidding males to kill their rivals for a female, or for any other purpose within the group. Murder became immoral.
In order for the group to expand and prosper, and to reduce infighting, there would have been created rules about marriage, and punishment for adulterers, and so on. Rules which are now described as morality would have been created in order to encourage people to behave in a way which enhanced the prosperity and effictiveness of the group.
However, there's always been a huge problem with enforcing rules. The police force is a modern development. Just a few hundred years ago in England, if your house was burgled, or a relative murdered whilst trekking through the forest, you'd probably have to hire your own detective to find the culprit. If you couldn't afford that, then probably nothing would be done.
Announcing the existence of a divine authority, or Creator God, and the concept of a punishment of 'everlasting hell' for those who broke the rules, plus the inducement of an everlasting heaven for those who obeyed the rules, was a very practical way of controlling people in the absence of an effective police force.
All morality has a practical foundation based upon what was deemed by the 'thinking' members of the group to be the most advantageous behaviour for the group or society to flourish.
Hope I've managed to dispel confusion and muddled thinking on this issue. ;)
-
In regard to the rest of your response, you keep invoking logic. However, not once have you shown a logical nexus to support your point (or to speak against mine). Just saying that something is logical because it fits your paradigm does not, unsurprisingly, make it logical.
That cuts both ways, no? Logical is logical.
Notwithstanding that, your appeal to a transcendent moral source is, by definition, not logical.
It has been stated ad nauseum that I am not appealing to a transcendent source here. I am only stating, as others have more elegantly, that without a transcendent source there are no moral absolutes. Whether I believe in a transcendent source is immaterial. Neither you nor anyone else has made any substantial refutation to this idea. It is as if you can't get past the idea that my beliefs have anything to do with this. They do not.
Again(squared). If there is no absolute moral authority then there are no moral absolutes. That's all that is really at stake here. The logic is incontrovertible. If you think not then disprove it. You do not need to bring my beliefs into it because my beliefs do not affect or inform the logic behind this statement. I'm not the target. The logic is your target. If it is illogical, show me how.
To answer your question about slavery. Yes, slavery was authoritatively moral at various times and places in history (and was, at the same time, relatively moral and immoral).
Good answer. That means that under certain times and conditions anything can be moral. Again, you're making my point for me. Thanks.
Of interest, despite your refusal to discuss it, is that even your transcendent (theological) source accepted slavery as moral.
I did not refuse. You are just bound and determined to misappropriate almost everything I say. I'm happy to discuss it. It is a complex topic..........that has nothing to do with the logical argument that confronts you. Absolutely nothing.
I'll leave you with this: Is it moral for a transcendent authority to not make every one equally aware of the absolute morals that exist?
Red herring. Easy answer. It depends on whether the moral authority is wholly powerful and completely good or not.
-
I have investigated such issues and formed an opinion which I believe is based upon rationality.
There seems to be a growing consensus in psychology and philosophy that there are two classes of moral process: 1) rational, effortful and explicit, and 2) emotional, quick and intuitive. The controversy remains in how they interact. Certainly, the neural underpinnings of morality are not yet well understood.
I think that (healthy) Theists, Deists, Agnostics and Atheists alike have notions of what is moral and what is not moral. These notions are certainly not universal; anyone might find him/herself at odds with another person (even when they both believe in an absolute moral authority), or general societal mores, or society's laws.
Most are untroubled by the origins of these notions, or whether they are logical or not, except when those notions are challenged, or when the moral issue becomes personal.
In my lifetime, I have known both devout theists and ardent atheists who have grappled with, and sometimes changed their minds on, such issues as premarital sex, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, corporal punishment, assisted suicide, and even the morality of proselytizing (not an exhaustive list, to be sure). My father and I used to debate such questions often. One of the most erudite men I've ever known was an ex Dominican Priest who used to say "I have not abandoned my God, but I have left my church and the institutionalization of religion". I wish I had been able to discuss that statement with him further, but such was not the nature of our relationship.
I do think it's important that we do not entirely dismiss the emotional, intuitive processes of morality (altruism, empathy, etc.). We've all seen when "rationalized" is touted as rational. We've all seen what happens when someone with a deficient sense of empathy is allowed to take power.
-
It has been stated ad nauseum that I am not appealing to a transcendent source here.
I did not refuse. You are just bound and determined to misappropriate almost everything I say.
Except, N80, that I was replying to Tony, and not you. I never said that YOU were appealing to a transcendent source nor that you refused to do anything. I most certainly did not misappropriate almost everything you said, because I wasn't responding to you.
I have said all along there are no moral absolutes. As an aside, I also say there is no proof of an absolute authority (and, as you say, there can therefore be no moral absolutes).
So, perhaps you'd like to try again after realising that my reply came after Tony's and was in respond to him?
-
Except, N80, that I was replying to Tony, and not you. I never said that YOU were appealing to a transcendent source nor that you refused to do anything. I most certainly did not misappropriate almost everything you said, because I wasn't responding to you.
Perhaps including quotes might help avoid confusion. Further, Tony refusing to reply about slavery is immaterial to the topic at hand. It is a diversion. It is an interesting one for sure, but Tony weighing in on it does not suggest a defeater for my premise or his.
I have said all along there are no moral absolutes.
Good. I can't imagine why the argument need go any further..........except for that one nagging little thing.....the consequences of that understanding that there are no moral absolutes. That's were most atheists and contemporary existentialists get all squeamish and defensive. That consequence is, of course, that with no moral absolutes there is no objective right or wrong, no objective good or evil. Literally anything goes as long as you are strong enough. This is logically consistent.
It is logically inconsistent to suggest that anyone has a moral duty to work to reverse or stabilize global warming (the original topic). If I'm not worried about global warming, of if I profit from worsening it or profit from the consequences of it that is my business. It is not wrong. Its just another opinion.
In that regard, global warming activists can try to scare me about global warming, but they can't logically suggest that I have an obligation to do anything about it.
(For the record, I'm all for doing all the logical common sense things to preserve the environment).
As an aside, I also say there is no proof of an absolute authority (and, as you say, there can therefore be no moral absolutes).
Good for you. And you might be right. But you cannot likewise prove that there isn't either.
So, perhaps you'd like to try again after realising that my reply came after Tony's and was in respond to him?
Don't get all high and mighty over a little mistake that you contributed to by not replying with quotes or even a name. It is unbecoming.
-
Perhaps including quotes might help avoid confusion. Further, Tony refusing to reply about slavery is immaterial to the topic at hand. It is a diversion. It is an interesting one for sure, but Tony weighing in on it does not suggest a defeater for my premise or his.
Yes, but really it's not that hard to follow from one to the other. Still, yes, demonstrably it makes it easier.
Tony's refusal about slavery is linked only to his initial call for me to quote chapter and verse, which I did. As I said to him, his decision to subsequently not reply says nothing negative about him - it's a message board, it's not important, it doesn't reflect on him one way or the other.
Good. I can't imagine why the argument need go any further..........except for that one nagging little thing.....the consequences of that understanding that there are no moral absolutes. That's were most atheists and contemporary existentialists get all squeamish and defensive. That consequence is, of course, that with no moral absolutes there is no objective right or wrong, no objective good or evil. Literally anything goes as long as you are strong enough. This is logically consistent.
Yes, hence authoritative morality.
It is logically inconsistent to suggest that anyone has a moral duty to work to reverse or stabilize global warming (the original topic). If I'm not worried about global warming, of if I profit from worsening it or profit from the consequences of it that is my business. It is not wrong. Its just another opinion.
No, if society views it as a moral imperative, then it is consistent to say that members of that society have a moral duty to act accordingly. Authoritative morality. If they don't, they are subject to the ire of the society, in whatever form it may take. Morality exists without an absolute, and it does vary from person to person, but since an individual rarely has sufficient power to enforce it, let alone over the power of a society, then the societal moral (authoritative morality) are effective (whether you like them or not). This is logically consistent.
In that regard, global warming activists can try to scare me about global warming, but they can't logically suggest that I have an obligation to do anything about it.
(For the record, I'm all for doing all the logical common sense things to preserve the environment).
They can make such a logical suggestion that you are obligated, either by law or by authoritative morality. If you don't, you suffer the consequences (whatever they may be). There is no need for an absolute morality to enable this, merely for the society to be able to enforce its morality upon you, through whatever means.
This is logical.
Good for you. And you might be right. But you cannot likewise prove that there isn't either.
Of course. Asking me to prove a negative (the non-existence of something) is a logical fallacy.
Since such a transcendent entity as presented in modern religion (as an example) typically relies on faith, it is not a matter of logic, and asking me to logically disprove it is as absurd as me asking you (generally you, not specific) to prove its existence. But if someone does ask for me to logically prove a negative, it's not unreasonable for me to point out that's a fallacy and respond in kind asking them to prove, logically, its existence (if they want to set a ridiculous paradigm, they must also live with it).
Don't get all high and mighty over a little mistake that you contributed to by not replying with quotes or even a name. It is unbecoming.
All I did was invite you to try again based on the clarification, after you tried to lecture me.
-
There seems to be a growing consensus in psychology and philosophy that there are two classes of moral process: 1) rational, effortful and explicit, and 2) emotional, quick and intuitive. The controversy remains in how they interact. Certainly, the neural underpinnings of morality are not yet well understood.
Good point!
We create our own classifications in order to facilitate some process of understanding. The separate disciplines in science, such as Biology, Physics and Chemistry, do not exist as separate entities in external reality, but are restrictions and labels we've created in order to help us focus on a particular, narrow part of the spectrum of 'all knowledge'.
In reality there are no boundaries, just as there's no boundary between the color green and the color blue. This is why I keep bringing up the issue of duality in such discussions. There's a tendency to categorise things in common language so that they are 'either this' or 'that'.
As regards morality, perhaps the most fundamental of all moral principles is the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. This moral principle, in its broad meaning, includes other more recently expressed moral principles such as, 'Love thine enemy', and 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'.
However, without emotion and empathy, the Golden rule is deeply flawed. Empathy is required in order to understand the rule.
To give you a specific example, imagine a male who sees a female stranger in the woods, or wherever. They both look at each other and say hello. The woman thinks, 'I hope he moves on. I don't like him'. The man thinks, 'I hope she rushes towards me, and embraces me, and rubs my body, and so on'.
However, the woman doesn't do that, as one might understand. The man, however, thinks of the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Lacking empathy, he rationalizes along the lines, 'I would like her to rush towards me and smother me with kisses, so I'll do unto her what I would have her do unto me'.
He rushes towards her, and embraces her and smothers her with kisses, and she screams, 'Get off me you bastard. Help! Help! I'm being raped'. :(
I can't believe I'm writing this sort of thing on a Photography forum. ;D
However, I have used some photography-related analogies, so perhaps it's justified. The part of the electromagnet spectrum known as 'visible light' ranges from 400 to 700 nanometres. (A nanometre is one thousand-millionth of a metre.)
Between the colors Red and Violet there are therefore 298 different colors. How many have we named? This is not the same question as how many shades of different colors can we distinguish, which would presumably be much greater than 298 because of different degrees of luminosity, and the mixing of different colors from different parts of the spectrum.
I use this analogy to highlight the imprecision of dualistic, 'either/or' concepts.
-
I use this analogy to highlight the imprecision of dualistic, 'either/or' concepts.
Despite a seeming obsession with classification, many scientists would agree. With respect to morality, the "cognitive and emotional integration theory" posits that behavioral choices cannot be split into cognitive vs. emotional. Complex contextual situations can make behavioral decisions exceptionally difficult. One of the tools that researchers use is the moral dilemma – a theoretical situation in which every possible course of action breaches some otherwise binding moral principle. Pity the person who is faced with a real moral dilemma.
I've read that the "Golden Rule" is more often a Western moral maxim, whereas the subtly different "Silver Rule" is more often found in Eastern religions: "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do unto others" (Confucious, in Analects, circa 500BCE). Of course, there are many examples of the so-called Silver Rule in western teachings. Some would argue that they amount to the same thing, but I'm not so sure. I see them as two sides of the same ethical coin. Oh, oh. Have I just used a dualistic analogy? :o
-
No, if society views it as a moral imperative, then it is consistent to say that members of that society have a moral duty to act accordingly.
Wrong. It is only logically consistent to say that they are bound to act that way under risk of punishment. Again, that sort of "morality" is what accounts for slavery and holocausts.
Authoritative morality.
That is only a euphemism for might-makes-right. But in that regard you are correct that it is authoritative but you are incorrect that it is moral as per my statement above.
If they don't, they are subject to the ire of the society, in whatever form it may take.
Again, might-makes-right. That is all you are describing. Nothing more.
Morality exists without an absolute, and it does vary from person to person, but since an individual rarely has sufficient power to enforce it, let alone over the power of a society, then the societal moral (authoritative morality) are effective (whether you like them or not).
Depends on how you define effective. If by effective you mean slavery, genocide, abuse of the planet then you are right. But those things are not moral no matter how you abuse the word moral. You cannot get around this.
This is logically consistent.
It is becoming clearer by the minute that you do not understand the word logical.
They can make such a logical suggestion that you are obligated, either by law or by authoritative morality. If you don't, you suffer the consequences (whatever they may be). There is no need for an absolute morality to enable this, merely for the society to be able to enforce its morality upon you, through whatever means.
Yep. Might makes right. Survival of the fittest. That is what you are describing. The logically inconsistency is that what you describe includes, again, slavery, genocide, rape, child abuse and a host of other atrocities most people would say were immoral. By your definition of moral, as long as those things are agreed on by a society and enforced by its laws then they are by definition "moral".
No amount of wiggling can extract you from the absurdity of you reasoning.
-
Since such a transcendent entity as presented in modern religion (as an example) typically relies on faith, it is not a matter of logic, and asking me to logically disprove it is as absurd as me asking you (generally you, not specific) to prove its existence. But if someone does ask for me to logically prove a negative, it's not unreasonable for me to point out that's a fallacy and respond in kind asking them to prove, logically, its existence (if they want to set a ridiculous paradigm, they must also live with it).
I'm getting the impression, George, that you've missed the point in the distinction between 'proving that something that is postulated does not exist', and 'proving that what is postulated actually does exist'. (But correct me if my impression is wrong.) ;)
The processes are vastly different. To prove that something does not exist, period, would require a total, real and scientific awareness of everything that exists in the universe, and all universes if there is more than one. Within such an impossible context it could then be declared that a specific entity, such as God, did not exist, period.
However, to prove that something does exist, all we have to do is detect its presence in some way, directly through our senses, and/or using sophisticated scientific equipment.
The practical consequences of this distinction can perhaps be summarized by that famous Mark Twain quote;
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
-
I'm getting the impression, George, that you've missed the point in the distinction between 'proving that something that is postulated does not exist', and 'proving that what is postulated actually does exist'. (But correct me if my impression is wrong.) ;)
Ray, I'll be honest with you but I don't remember making the statement that you quoted as being mine. At first I thought it came from someone else but it does have my name attached to it. And quite frankly, I can't make much sense of it right now or your response to it. That's not a dig on you, I just think my hearts not into this discussion anymore. You can take this as an admission of utter defeat if you will, or a cop out or whatever but I think it is time for me to bow out with whatever small measure I grace I might possess.
-
Ray, I'll be honest with you but I don't remember making the statement that you quoted as being mine. At first I thought it came from someone else but it does have my name attached to it. And quite frankly, I can't make much sense of it right now or your response to it. That's not a dig on you, I just think my hearts not into this discussion anymore. You can take this as an admission of utter defeat if you will, or a cop out or whatever but I think it is time for me to bow out with whatever small measure I grace I might possess.
George, that's how LuLa maks me feel every few months or so.
It's an emotion that extends to photography itself: an internal battle of wits manifest in pointless attempts to create something new, when the realisation is that nothing new remains to be created in photography, the best outcome being that we, too, may replicate some version of the best of what's gone before.
Forum chats are no better; nobody really listens, and the best one finds are well-written expressions of unchangeable, determined points of view.
Frankly, it's all somewhat depressing. I think the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique. Once you can do whatever you want to do, the only point in doing it is if somebody wants to pay you for doing it. To do, for yourself, something that is just a constant reaffirmation of your ability to do it, seems crazy. Better moving on and trying to conquer some other discipline. It's now several weeks since I took a picture; at first I felt conscience, now I feel nothing. The mistake - or revelation - was in asking myself why I wanted to take them; what in hell was I hoping to find or to prove? Was it just to justify the continuation of a website? What is amateur photography, anyway? Is it just a form of self-expression; is it the following of a few tricks one learns, repeated formulaic games that could be played in paint just as well as in files or prints? All that's certain is that one can spend a lot of time and money playing, and that as one ages the cost in time becomes greater.
Rob C
-
Ray, I'll be honest with you but I don't remember making the statement that you quoted as being mine. At first I thought it came from someone else but it does have my name attached to it. And quite frankly, I can't make much sense of it right now or your response to it. That's not a dig on you, I just think my hearts not into this discussion anymore. You can take this as an admission of utter defeat if you will, or a cop out or whatever but I think it is time for me to bow out with whatever small measure I grace I might possess.
George,
No worries! as we say in Australia. Hope I haven't upset you. I know that issues involving religion can be very sensitive.
Best regards
Ray
-
Frankly, it's all somewhat depressing. I think the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique. Once you can do whatever you want to do, the only point in doing it is if somebody wants to pay you for doing it. To do, for yourself, something that is just a constant reaffirmation of your ability to do it, seems crazy. Better moving on and trying to conquer some other discipline. It's now several weeks since I took a picture; at first I felt conscience, now I feel nothing. The mistake - or revelation - was in asking myself why I wanted to take them; what in hell was I hoping to find or to prove? Was it just to justify the continuation of a website? What is amateur photography, anyway? Is it just a form of self-expression; is it the following of a few tricks one learns, repeated formulaic games that could be played in paint just as well as in files or prints? All that's certain is that one can spend a lot of time and money playing, and that as one ages the cost in time becomes greater.
Rob C
Some interesting points you've made there, Rob, although as an amateur I tend to disagree with most of them.
For example, whilst I think it's true that a part of the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique, it is only a part. Also, that part is a never-ending process in some respects, considering the new and/or improved features that are continually added to Photoshop and the new models of cameras that become available every year. (I'm currently eagerly waiting for Nikon to release a full-frame DSLR with pixels that are the quality and size of D7200 pixels.) ;)
For me, as an amateur, the major joy of photography is in the act of capturing any scene which I think is beautiful, or unusual, or meaningful, or intriguing, or amusing, or simply interesting in whatever way.
When I later process the images, as I sit at my desk in front of a large-screen monitor, with Wallabies often visible through the window when I occasionally turn my head, I relive to some extent those interesting moments I had at the time I captured the images, as well as getting additional satisfaction from the creative aspect of selecting the various processing options in Bridge and Photoshop.
Attached are a couple of shots I took recently during Chinese New Year in Brisbane, Australia. I thought the scenes were quite unusual, although I wasn't pleased with the intensity of the crowds which made it difficult to move around, so I didn't stay long.
-
Some interesting points you've made there, Rob, although as an amateur I tend to disagree with most of them.
For example, whilst I think it's true that a part of the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique, it is only a part. Also, that part is a never-ending process in some respects, considering the new and/or improved features that are continually added to Photoshop and the new models of cameras that become available every year. (I'm currently eagerly waiting for Nikon to release a full-frame DSLR with pixels that are the quality and size of D7200 pixels.) ;)
For me, as an amateur, the major joy of photography is in the act of capturing any scene which I think is beautiful, or unusual, or meaningful, or intriguing, or amusing, or simply interesting in whatever way.
When I later process the images, as I sit at my desk in front of a large-screen monitor, with Wallabies often visible through the window when I occasionally turn my head, I relive to some extent those interesting moments I had at the time I captured the images, as well as getting additional satisfaction from the creative aspect of selecting the various processing options in Bridge and Photoshop.
Attached are a couple of shots I took recently during Chinese New Year in Brisbane, Australia. I thought the scenes were quite unusual, although I wasn't pleased with the intensity of the crowds which made it difficult to move around, so I didn't stay long.
"Some interesting points you've made there, Rob, although as an amateur I tend to disagree with most of them."
Feel free, it's life; just don't ask yourself too many questions or, better still, don't allow yourself to get too close to what you do. It can ovetake you and change from fun to self-imposed obligation.
;-)
Rob
-
Rob, a few reasons to be cheerful to continue pressing that shutter release:-
1. It gets me out of the house, fills my day, feeds my obsessive compulsive disorder need to make images, gives me the perfect excuse to travel and or explore my surroundings which in turn gives me the perfect excuse to make images, provides interest and purpose, allows me to waste my time replying to photography related threads and to correspond with other interesting photographers…
2. What else can deliver all the above and more?
;-)
1. Thing is, when Ann was around I never felt I wanted to get out of the house other than for reasons of work: it was fantastic just being within that house - with house used mainly but not exclusively as metaphor for the holistic experience, of course. Truth to tell, I couldn't wait for the time when we had the shoot budgets to include her - legitimately - as a contributor to foreign shoots, much as V is your own travelling companion and adds spice; in short, the added dimension of special company made all the difference to the level of the experience.
It was exactly the endeavour to fill the vacuum that sent me off into a website etc. and the self-imposed need to keep updating the thing with fresh blood. As I realise, now and again, it's all just a substitute. Which leads me directly to (2).
2. So far, nothing else comes close to filling voids; as it (photography) filled my working life too, that's hardly surprising; the problem is that now and again the realisation hits that it's become a self-delusion being practised on a full-time scale, that scares me. Fortunately, it goes the cycle and I come out the other end doing something else. For a while it was Ms Coke that both provided and fed a cont¡nuing need to think graphically, then it became subjects not particularly focussed in any specific genre, which meant it was just a vague drift, and why I can't even think what the hell it was. (Oh yes, it was shooting little scenes that I stumbled onto from the car park to wherever I eat lunch. You see the problem. It's the equivalent of doing anything without assignment, and why stock was always a bit difficult for my particular mindset.) Then I rediscovered Leiter, which renewed the creative buzz, but it really requires specific big-city conditions that I haven't got. Even I can't continue looking into the same few windows ad infinitum and feeling fulfilled.
So at best, it's back to the drawing board. Of course, there's no doubt that insofar as I'm concerned, winter brings its own bad vibe. Here's lookin' at spring!
;-)
Rob
-
George, that's how LuLa maks me feel every few months or so.
Sure. But here at LuLa I usually feel like I've benefited from the discussion even when it has runs its course or I have run mine.
It's an emotion that extends to photography itself: an internal battle of wits manifest in pointless attempts to create something new, when the realisation is that nothing new remains to be created in photography, the best outcome being that we, too, may replicate some version of the best of what's gone before.
Frankly, it's all somewhat depressing. I think the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique. Once you can do whatever you want to do, the only point in doing it is if somebody wants to pay you for doing it. To do, for yourself, something that is just a constant reaffirmation of your ability to do it, seems crazy. Better moving on and trying to conquer some other discipline.
Rob C
Dang Rob. That's pretty dark for a place called the Luminous Landscape but it is an interesting perspective. As I mentioned, I've moved on from the initial topics of this thread but I'm responding here once more because your take on photography here is thought provoking and I'd like to take it up in another thread here in the Coffee Corner. Would it be okay to quote you as I have done above in a new thread?
-
Sure. But here at LuLa I usually feel like I've benefited from the discussion even when it has runs its course or I have run mine.
Dang Rob. That's pretty dark for a place called the Luminous Landscape but it is an interesting perspective. As I mentioned, I've moved on from the initial topics of this thread but I'm responding here once more because your take on photography here is thought provoking and I'd like to take it up in another thread here in the Coffee Corner. Would it be okay to quote you as I have done above in a new thread?
Be my guest, George; by all means take it from here.
Rob C