| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2011 07:50:52 PM · #651 |
Are you really putting yourself squarely in the Moral Skeptic camp? It makes a lot of sense as far as understanding things you have said in the past. Of course you seem to want to have morality at the same time when you say things like:
"It's a common theme with these guys. Achoo has posed absurd "moral dilemmas" several times as if someone who doesn't believe in Zeus or the Tooth Fairy would give an unexpected answer (a manifestation of the quaint primitive belief that people cannot be moral unless they're trying to please the gods)."
Your statement is quite true, but it's absurd coming from you if you feel that "morality" is a word that doesn't carry any helpful meaning. To quote the article you just linked:
"Yet would it really be so awful to do away with morality? I don’t think so."
He feels this way because to him, "The error theorist holds that our moral judgments purport to be true but that the universe just doesn’t contain the requisite properties (goodness, wrongness, etc.) necessary to render any of them true. This is an attitude towards morality analogous to the attitude an atheist takes towards religion. This kind of moral skeptic typically doesn’t attribute error to all evaluative talk, but just to moral talk." He goes on further, "If the error theorist is correct, then the natural assumption is that we should eliminate moral considerations from our minds entirely, just as we have eliminated beliefs in mermaids and phlogiston."
Why do you even bother with these conversations Shannon if you feel it is all verbage that is meaningless? Seems like odd behavior to me. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 07:57:51 PM · #652 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
OK, a hypothetical question for the Christians then.... You're walking through the woods and encounter a boy who's been raised by Satan worshipping parents and is completely immersed in the most evil, vile thing you could imagine. He's about to be bitten by a venomous snake and you have the ability to kill the snake and keep him from being killed, but not the ability to stop him from completing his deed if you do. Do you? |
This seems like a very different question. To be clear, are you telling me he is in the act of some great evil right now and the snake is going to bite him at the same time? So I'm weighing the value of his life against the evil of the act he is about to commit?
What's your answer? Let's rephrase just slightly for you since I'm guessing "Satan worship" doesn't mean a lot. The child is now a man and a known child molester who is about to rape an eight year old girl. Do you save him? |
Yes, he is in the midst of committing some heinous act (could be anything you strongly opposed, doesn't matter), and yes he is a child (I'll even give an age range of say 12 to 14). For specifics, the snake is coming up behind him and he is unaware, you are behind the snake. And yes, you are weighing the value of his life against the act he is about to commit (remember, if you kill the snake you cannot stop what he is about to do). I'll say to you what you've said in the past, answer the question as asked, then I'll give you my atheist opinion on what I'd do.
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 20:16:21. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 08:20:04 PM · #653 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yes, he is in the midst of committing some heinous act (could be anything you strongly opposed, doesn't matter), and yes he is a child (I'll even give an age range of say 12 to 14). For specifics, the snake is coming up behind him and he is unaware, you are behind the snake. And yes, you are weighing the value of his life against the act he is about to commit (remember, if you kill the snake you cannot stop what he is about to do). I'll say to you what you've said in the past, answer the question as answered, then I'll give you my atheist opinion on what I'd do. |
Sorry for all the questions, but why not just put a gun in my hand? Why the snake bit? It only complicates the situation or tries to get at whether a passive act is the same as an active act (ie. is it the same to let him die as to kill him yourself).
Really the question is probably quite dependent on the actual act. I'm strongly opposed to cruelty (ie. the unjustified infliction of pain) to animals, but I'm not likely to kill the boy because of that. I'm also strongly opposed to murder (ie. the unjustified killing of another person), so if he were about to kill someone else I probably would not save his (the killer's) life. Fair enough? |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 08:31:41 PM · #654 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yes, he is in the midst of committing some heinous act (could be anything you strongly opposed, doesn't matter), and yes he is a child (I'll even give an age range of say 12 to 14). For specifics, the snake is coming up behind him and he is unaware, you are behind the snake. And yes, you are weighing the value of his life against the act he is about to commit (remember, if you kill the snake you cannot stop what he is about to do). I'll say to you what you've said in the past, answer the question as answered, then I'll give you my atheist opinion on what I'd do. |
Sorry for all the questions, but why not just put a gun in my hand? Why the snake bit? It only complicates the situation or tries to get at whether a passive act is the same as an active act (ie. is it the same to let him die as to kill him yourself).
Really the question is probably quite dependent on the actual act. I'm strongly opposed to cruelty (ie. the unjustified infliction of pain) to animals, but I'm not likely to kill the boy because of that. I'm also strongly opposed to murder (ie. the unjustified killing of another person), so if he were about to kill someone else I probably would not save his (the killer's) life. Fair enough? |
That's the point that most people have tried to get through to the people asking "what would an atheist do". What you would do is completely unrelated to who or what you believe in, it's situationally dependent.
So in the case above, I like yourself would let him die if he were about to kill someone else, but would intervene if it was anything less than murder about to take place because he is a child and worth saving no matter what his beliefs are.
eta: The reason I didn't put a gun in your hand is you could then stop what was about to happen with just the threat of shooting ("hey, stop or I'll shoot") versus having to make a 'moral' decision.
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 20:34:20. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 08:54:48 PM · #655 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yes, he is in the midst of committing some heinous act (could be anything you strongly opposed, doesn't matter), and yes he is a child (I'll even give an age range of say 12 to 14). For specifics, the snake is coming up behind him and he is unaware, you are behind the snake. And yes, you are weighing the value of his life against the act he is about to commit (remember, if you kill the snake you cannot stop what he is about to do). I'll say to you what you've said in the past, answer the question as answered, then I'll give you my atheist opinion on what I'd do. |
Sorry for all the questions, but why not just put a gun in my hand? Why the snake bit? It only complicates the situation or tries to get at whether a passive act is the same as an active act (ie. is it the same to let him die as to kill him yourself).
Really the question is probably quite dependent on the actual act. I'm strongly opposed to cruelty (ie. the unjustified infliction of pain) to animals, but I'm not likely to kill the boy because of that. I'm also strongly opposed to murder (ie. the unjustified killing of another person), so if he were about to kill someone else I probably would not save his (the killer's) life. Fair enough? |
That's the point that most people have tried to get through to the people asking "what would an atheist do". What you would do is completely unrelated to who or what you believe in, it's situationally dependent.
So in the case above, I like yourself would let him die if he were about to kill someone else, but would intervene if it was anything less than murder about to take place because he is a child and worth saving no matter what his beliefs are.
eta: The reason I didn't put a gun in your hand is you could then stop what was about to happen with just the threat of shooting ("hey, stop or I'll shoot") versus having to make a 'moral' decision. |
Maybe. But maybe not. My intrinsic value of human life is related to my religious belief that we are made in the image of God. This doesn't mean there are not other reasons to be found to value human life, but the details may cause different outcomes. Take the dog and the kid dilemma. If you value human life above animal life for this reason the answer may always be to save the child. If your value for human life comes from ingroup/outgroup loyalty, it may be possible to override that with a stronger ingroup/outgroup loyalty. What if the dog was YOUR dog (ie. part of your family tribe)? What if the dog was YOUR dog and helped provide income by helping you hunt? What if the dog was YOUR dog and helped provide food for your family by helping you hunt? These questions may not matter in the first case, but may be important in the ingroup/outgroup case. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 09:05:43 PM · #656 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yes, he is in the midst of committing some heinous act (could be anything you strongly opposed, doesn't matter), and yes he is a child (I'll even give an age range of say 12 to 14). For specifics, the snake is coming up behind him and he is unaware, you are behind the snake. And yes, you are weighing the value of his life against the act he is about to commit (remember, if you kill the snake you cannot stop what he is about to do). I'll say to you what you've said in the past, answer the question as answered, then I'll give you my atheist opinion on what I'd do. |
Sorry for all the questions, but why not just put a gun in my hand? Why the snake bit? It only complicates the situation or tries to get at whether a passive act is the same as an active act (ie. is it the same to let him die as to kill him yourself).
Really the question is probably quite dependent on the actual act. I'm strongly opposed to cruelty (ie. the unjustified infliction of pain) to animals, but I'm not likely to kill the boy because of that. I'm also strongly opposed to murder (ie. the unjustified killing of another person), so if he were about to kill someone else I probably would not save his (the killer's) life. Fair enough? |
That's the point that most people have tried to get through to the people asking "what would an atheist do". What you would do is completely unrelated to who or what you believe in, it's situationally dependent.
So in the case above, I like yourself would let him die if he were about to kill someone else, but would intervene if it was anything less than murder about to take place because he is a child and worth saving no matter what his beliefs are.
eta: The reason I didn't put a gun in your hand is you could then stop what was about to happen with just the threat of shooting ("hey, stop or I'll shoot") versus having to make a 'moral' decision. |
Maybe. But maybe not. My intrinsic value of human life is related to my religious belief that we are made in the image of God. This doesn't mean there are not other reasons to be found to value human life, but the details may cause different outcomes. Take the dog and the kid dilemma. If you value human life above animal life for this reason the answer may always be to save the child. If your value for human life comes from ingroup/outgroup loyalty, it may be possible to override that with a stronger ingroup/outgroup loyalty. What if the dog was YOUR dog (ie. part of your family tribe)? What if the dog was YOUR dog and helped provide income by helping you hunt? What if the dog was YOUR dog and helped provide food for your family by helping you hunt? These questions may not matter in the first case, but may be important in the ingroup/outgroup case. |
And yet still don't matter one iota regarding atheism. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 09:06:49 PM · #657 |
I really believe human instinct will almost always win out when dealing with a human versus animal saving situation, especially if that human is a child. It's just human nature. I don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with God. I love my dog, but I'd save a stranger's child over my own dog every time.
eta: and this is how much of a baby my dog is... 
Message edited by author 2011-03-18 21:10:17. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 10:16:19 PM · #658 |
| Well, it would be quite odd if you did think it had something to do with God since you don't believe he exists. :D |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 10:27:31 PM · #659 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My intrinsic value of human life is related to my religious belief that we are made in the image of God. This doesn't mean there are not other reasons to be found to value human life, but the details may cause different outcomes. |
As a person of faith your will to do good is viewed by you as a will to do right by your God and his teachings as you understand them. Many people who's religious life is at the center of their way of being, imagine that those without faith would be like they would be without that central core, a tent without a tent pole. This is why many faiths look so harshly on non believers, and why when people of faith lose their faith, they often fall so hard.
For those of us without faith, God is not at their center, but the same will to do good exists. That striving towards the betterment of the human condition is not to cleave to a holy text, nor with the hope of some heavenly reward, but that core which you see as service to god, atheists have in the same degree, but we follow a private philosophy which serves to move us forward. To my eyes faith is a filter through which deists sort the good and the bad, but that same action is equally well done without that filter. Mother Teresa could not have done her work without her faith, but Doctors Without Borders does not need faith to do good works. |
|
|
|
03/18/2011 11:29:38 PM · #660 |
I hope you don't think I don't understand or agree with everything you just said Brennan. I got no problem with that.
I do have a problem with Moral Error Theory or Moral Skepticism. I just simply disagree with this position. I realize not every atheist holds this, but we may have found one who does. The good news is I can just understand Shannon's position and then discard it as something I disagree with. I am a Moral Realist. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:04:15 AM · #661 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your statement is quite true, but it's absurd coming from you if you feel that "morality" is a word that doesn't carry any helpful meaning. |
I never said morality was meaningless. You're making that up. My last post before yours:
Originally posted by scalvert:
There's nothing objectively right or wrong about picking the dog. Of course, subjectively most people will strongly favor the boy. |
Morality is a subjective term defined by the norms of society and subject to change. You or I can declare that something is moral or immoral, but it will be a personal opinion and depend heavily on cultural context. 2000 years ago it was moral to stone adulterers. Today it isn't. 100 years ago it was moral to abhor interracial couples. Today it isn't. One person might think it's moral to allow people to marry any consenting adult they choose, while another is absolutely certain that gay marriage is immoral. None of these positions are objectively "correct." 50 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable, and 50 years from now few people will remember what all the fuss was about. Something is right or wrong because society says so, not the gods. Society has slowly adapted and progressed to the freedoms and human rights we enjoy today, while religion drags on that process like a boat anchor mired inextricably in the archaic beliefs of its ancestors. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:12:32 AM · #662 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your reply only serves to avoid the question at hand. Rephrase. If we met someone who relates a story where they had to choose to save a dog or a person from a fire (so we can avoid the "the dog can swim" bit) and they chose the dog, could we objectively declare their choice to be incorrect? This way we don't have to worry about being in the moment or trying to save both, etc. The choice has been made (not even by yourself). Can we objectively declare it incorrect and on what grounds? |
From a strictly legal point of view, you might find yourself in a pickle if you did not try to assist the person, depending on where in the world you live and what type of profession you occupied.
In Canada for instance, there does exist a legal requirement for a person to provide assistance to a person in peril, unless doing so would put your own life in danger.
Similarly, if you were a police officer or fire fighter and failed to render assistance, you likely would face charges for nonfeasance.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:14:46 AM · #663 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...50 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable, and 50 years from now few people will remember what all the fuss was about. |
Not really a big deal in a lot of countries really... simply look north of you.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:36:03 AM · #664 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
From a strictly legal point of view, you might find yourself in a pickle if you did not try to assist the person, depending on where in the world you live and what type of profession you occupied. |
Actually, from a strictly legal point of view, I was thinking I may be in trouble killing the person (although perhaps the passiveness of the snakebite might let me off the hook). If I had a gun I don't think I would be clearly in the right to shoot the person to prevent an evil act. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:38:15 AM · #665 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your statement is quite true, but it's absurd coming from you if you feel that "morality" is a word that doesn't carry any helpful meaning. |
I never said morality was meaningless. You're making that up. My last post before yours:
Originally posted by scalvert:
There's nothing objectively right or wrong about picking the dog. Of course, subjectively most people will strongly favor the boy. |
Morality is a subjective term defined by the norms of society and subject to change. You or I can declare that something is moral or immoral, but it will be a personal opinion and depend heavily on cultural context. 2000 years ago it was moral to stone adulterers. Today it isn't. 100 years ago it was moral to abhor interracial couples. Today it isn't. One person might think it's moral to allow people to marry any consenting adult they choose, while another is absolutely certain that gay marriage is immoral. None of these positions are objectively "correct." 50 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable, and 50 years from now few people will remember what all the fuss was about. Something is right or wrong because society says so, not the gods. Society has slowly adapted and progressed to the freedoms and human rights we enjoy today, while religion drags on that process like a boat anchor mired inextricably in the archaic beliefs of its ancestors. |
This is the utter frustration in talking to you. If you believe this, why on God's green earth do you quote an essay on Moral Error Theory to support your position? You clearly define the word "rhetoric" in which the argument and winning is far more important than representing a position or any semblance of truth. Did you even know what Moral Error Theory was when you posted the link, or did you just hunt around Google for something that seemed to suit your purpose at the time?
Message edited by author 2011-03-19 00:40:01. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:39:30 AM · #666 |
In a seperate tangent of save the dog/save the boy conundrum, people living on the street, living off the spare change of passersby often keep dogs. The dogs provide a degree of security and companitonship to people in a tough place.
There is also an economic advantage, it seems that it up their income. The average person walking down the street is more likely to give a bit of spare change to a beggar with a dog. It seems people can blame the person for putting themselves into a position where they would go hungry without the kindness of strangers, but passresby are much more likely to feel empathy for the poor dog.
So we all agree we would save the boy from drowning or the fire, but if it was a grown man and a dog, and it was a question of which one you would show kindness towards, or toss a bit of food or spare change to, it seems we are more likely to save the dog. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:40:31 AM · #667 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
From a strictly legal point of view, you might find yourself in a pickle if you did not try to assist the person, depending on where in the world you live and what type of profession you occupied. |
Actually, from a strictly legal point of view, I was thinking I may be in trouble killing the person (although perhaps the passiveness of the snakebite might let me off the hook). If I had a gun I don't think I would be clearly in the right to shoot the person to prevent an evil act. |
Ya got me snookered Doc...I was addressing your scenario where one had the option of saving a person or a dog from a fire...where does this snake come from? is that some biblical reference that I missed? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:41:45 AM · #668 |
| The downside for the homeless person is a shelter will not allow you to stay with a dog. A big tradeoff. Most of the homeless people I've talked to find much more reward in the companionship, I think. The dog doesn't judge them and provides a small bit of stability. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:43:03 AM · #669 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
From a strictly legal point of view, you might find yourself in a pickle if you did not try to assist the person, depending on where in the world you live and what type of profession you occupied. |
Actually, from a strictly legal point of view, I was thinking I may be in trouble killing the person (although perhaps the passiveness of the snakebite might let me off the hook). If I had a gun I don't think I would be clearly in the right to shoot the person to prevent an evil act. |
Ya got me snookered Doc...I was addressing your scenario where one had the option of saving a person or a dog from a fire...where does this snake come from? is that some biblical reference that I missed? :O)
Ray |
Sorry, Ray. The snake comes from Kelli's dilemma and my bad for mixing them up. Yes, I actually agree with you now that things are straight in my head. LOL. It was Kelli's dilemma where I can let the person die who is about to do something bad. I would think that might get in some trouble with the law. Moreso if the death was more active (ie. with a gun).
Message edited by author 2011-03-19 00:44:16. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 12:51:39 AM · #670 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you believe this, why on God's green earth do you quote an essay on Moral Error Theory to support your position? |
Because the article clearly explains that people can believe something is right or wrong even if morality isn't objectively "correct." We can say that slavery or torture is morally wrong, but there is no objective "truth" to prove it. It's wrong because our culture says it is, end of story. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 01:09:41 AM · #671 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you believe this, why on God's green earth do you quote an essay on Moral Error Theory to support your position? |
Because the article clearly explains that people can believe something is right or wrong even if morality isn't objectively "correct." We can say that slavery or torture is morally wrong, but there is no objective "truth" to prove it. It's wrong because our culture says it is, end of story. |
I think you misunderstood your own article. The words "right" and "wrong" mean nothing to your author in a moral sense. He is saying people can still behave in a manner that is similar to someone who believes in moral precepts, but to speak of something as "right" or "wrong" is to speak nonsense. Look at the quote I had above:
This kind of moral skeptic typically doesn’t attribute error to all evaluative talk, but just to moral talk. (note he is saying the moral skeptic attributes error to all moral talk) Many moral terms have non-moral uses, and with the latter the error theorist has no beef. Thus, he still can talk without flinching of “the best computer,” “the wrong direction,” “a good idea”; he can maintain that someone “should not have another glass of wine,” “ought to believe X (given the evidence),” “has legal obligations,” and so forth. (Analogously, just because the atheist doesn’t believe in God’s commands, it doesn’t follow that she doesn’t believe in Fred’s commands.) But as such linguistic practices shade into their moral usages, the error theorist protests.
He goes on to say he isn't defending the theory, just talking about what the ramifications of such a theory might be. But the point remains, you are quoting an essay on Moral Error Theory to support a completely different position (probably something akin to Moral Relativism).
Message edited by author 2011-03-19 01:11:22. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 11:07:05 AM · #672 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The downside for the homeless person is a shelter will not allow you to stay with a dog. A big tradeoff. Most of the homeless people I've talked to find much more reward in the companionship, I think. The dog doesn't judge them and provides a small bit of stability. |
During my tenure in the police force I had occasion to meet and speak with a bevy of homeless people and they come in different groups. There are those who make use of the shelters, but a fairly large segment will have nothing to do with them as they have a total distrust of anything that is regimented or will have them recite religious verses in order to get a meal.
The latter group will sleep on park benches or over heating grates or other similar apparatus in winter months. The dog is there for companionship, a sense of security and an additional source of heat on cold wintry days.
At least that is what I was told by those I asked.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 01:38:30 PM · #673 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you misunderstood your own article. The words "right" and "wrong" mean nothing to your author in a moral sense. He is saying people can still behave in a manner that is similar to someone who believes in moral precepts, but to speak of something as "right" or "wrong" is to speak nonsense. |
Looks like YOU are the one who doesn't grasp the article. Look again at what you asked:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we met someone who relates a story where they had to choose to save a dog or a person from a fire... could we objectively declare their choice to be incorrect? Can we objectively declare it incorrect and on what grounds? |
No, there is nothing objectively correct about the choice. We can feel a choice is right or wrong for all sorts of subjective reasons, but objectively it IS meaningless. Morality is a descriptive code of conduct defined by society, culture and personal views. It simply doesn't exist as a normative thing. You may assert that killing another human is "morally wrong," and that's fine as a convenient way to describe a belief based on cultural norms, personal opinion, cost/benefit analyses, etc., but if challenged to prove it you'll find that the term really is meaningless. You cannot show that the proposition is factually true, so to say that it's objectively "right" or "wrong" is to speak nonsense. Similarly, I can say, "Bless you" to a sneeze as a polite way to acknowledge your moment of minor distress, but if pressed do I really believe you just purged an evil spirit from your soul? Of course not– the phrase is nonsense.
Message edited by author 2011-03-19 16:34:03. |
|
|
|
03/19/2011 04:37:45 PM · #674 |
I think you are wrong. In my view you are saying Moral Relativism is a better framework than Moral Universalism. Moral Error Theory is in a different domain and states that if one believes (your word) something to be "right" or "wrong", even if that belief is only within the framework of their socity, they are in error. Moral statements are always in error. It is an important distinction. So, in the end, perhaps we should understand that you are a Moral Relativist, but there is no way even your ability to twist what is written that you can attribute anything other than Moral Error Theory to your essayist.
See which outlook fits most closely to your own:
Moral Skepticism (ie. Moral Error Theory):
(i) all moral claims are false,
(ii) we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false, and so, because
(iii) we are not justified in believing any claim we have reason to deny, we are therefore not justified in believing any moral claims.
Moral Relativism:
Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people. The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is".
These are opposed to what I believe which is Moral Realism:
1.Moral statements are the sorts of statements which are (or which express propositions which are) true or false (or approximately true, largely false, etc.);
2.The truth or falsity (approximate truth...) of moral statements is largely independent of our moral opinions, theories, etc.;
3.Ordinary canons of moral reasoning—together with ordinary canons of scientific and everyday factual reasoning—constitute, under many circumstances at least, a reliable method for obtaining and improving (approximate) moral knowledge.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2011 05:23:58 PM · #675 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you are wrong. |
Fine, prove it. Take any moral proposition you like and prove that it is objectively true or correct independent of culture or opinion. Meanwhile I'll go make popcorn. |
|
