tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post110622027339544203..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: The Source of MoralityRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1130039691248029322005-10-22T23:54:00.000-04:002005-10-22T23:54:00.000-04:00Euthyphro overlooked Anselm's corollary, which def...Euthyphro overlooked Anselm's corollary, which defines God as "that than which no philosopher is actually outsmarting, even when that's what it looks like is happening." QEDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1127804753316729212005-09-27T03:05:00.000-04:002005-09-27T03:05:00.000-04:00Ascetain the validity that culture is the source o...Ascetain the validity that culture is the source of all morals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106319918295000322005-01-21T10:05:00.000-05:002005-01-21T10:05:00.000-05:00Well, Tennessee, you were the one claiming that th...Well, Tennessee, you were the one claiming that the good doesn't have any consistent meaning. Clearly you don't agree with that any longer, and I am pleased that you have recanted.<br /><br />I am certainly aware that others disagree with me about some points of right and wrong, and I certainly value study. But to claim that study will show us that "[the good] doesn't mean anything consistent" is frankly pernicious nonsense.<br /> <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.positiveliberty.com" TITLE="jason at positiveliberty dot com">Jason Kuznicki</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106313462070061362005-01-21T08:17:00.000-05:002005-01-21T08:17:00.000-05:00"Yeah. We should just rape and pillage whenever we..."Yeah. We should just rape and pillage whenever we feel like it. Such is the value of study. "<br /><br />Thus demonstrating your complete lack of understanding... Just because you have a concept of right and wrong doesn't mean that other people share your conceptions. Studying allows you to tell the difference between dogma and reasoning, bad argument and good, as well as see the various conceptions of good over time - and trust me they've changed.<br /><br />Take those words you put there out of my mouth.  <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?melbournephilosopher.blogspot.com" TITLE="tennessee at tennessee dot id dot au">Tennessee Leeuwenburg</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106281359438124462005-01-20T23:22:00.000-05:002005-01-20T23:22:00.000-05:00'What is the "good" anyway - I no longer understan...'What is the "good" anyway - I no longer understand this term in light of my studies. Every time I learn about it, the more I learn it doesn't mean anything consistent.'<br /><br />Yeah. We should just rape and pillage whenever we feel like it. Such is the value of study. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.positiveliberty.com" TITLE="jason at positiveliberty dot com">Jason Kuznicki</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106269958593827582005-01-20T20:12:00.000-05:002005-01-20T20:12:00.000-05:00A quick clarification: a few people seem to be int...A quick clarification: a few people seem to be interpreting my statements about 'cultural context' in terms of the silly nature/nurture dichotomy. My remarks were not meant in any such way. Of course we have biological dispositions towards certain patterns of thought and belief. (Nobody believes in the 'blank slate' anymore, so please unstuff that old straw man.) My point was simply that our beliefs are greatly influenced by our experiences in life. That should be utterly uncontroversial.<br /><br />"<I>the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.</I>"<br /><br />*shudder*<br />Okay, I may have underestimated the idiocy of many theists. I'm so glad to live in New Zealand... <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106259321895292422005-01-20T17:15:00.000-05:002005-01-20T17:15:00.000-05:00I wrote a comment, but Blogger ate it. It's doing ...I wrote a comment, but Blogger ate it. It's doing some particularly evil things today.<br /><br />Richard said: "DS argues that the existence of conflicting interpretations implies that religion cannot provide an objective basis for morality. But really this only shows that religion cannot provide an objective method for resolving moral disputes. In other words, it can't guarantee that we know the objective moral truths."<br /><br />Surely this isn't quite right? Conflict-of-interpretation objections have been around a long time, for all sorts of fields; and they don't really do much more than show that the issue at hand isn't perfectly self-evident. They are at most indirect measures of the difficulty of the issue, and don't really say anything about our knowledge or how we can guarantee our knowledge.<br /><br />Actually, I think DarkSyde's argument is quite right, at least to the extent that he is arguing that one cannot build morality entirely out of "God says so" unless you are divinely inspired in all your moral judgments; if you try to do so without such inspiration, you mire the whole thing in moral relativism. I don't think the argument is accurately characterizing what most people mean in making religion foundational for morals; but I certainly know a few people who would at least be in the ballpark.<br /><br />Now let's see if I can smuggle this post past Blogger's watchful comment-eating dragons. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fbranemrys.blogspot.com" TITLE="branem2 at branemrys dot org">Brandon</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106257731308555382005-01-20T16:48:00.000-05:002005-01-20T16:48:00.000-05:00Richard, my apologies for the multi-post,it wasn't...Richard, my apologies for the multi-post,it wasn't intentional. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?islraven+%40yahoo.com" TITLE="islraven at yahoo dot com">john t</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106256401826588552005-01-20T16:26:00.002-05:002005-01-20T16:26:00.002-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106256372953588302005-01-20T16:26:00.001-05:002005-01-20T16:26:00.001-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106256363605438032005-01-20T16:26:00.000-05:002005-01-20T16:26:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106256302872215852005-01-20T16:25:00.000-05:002005-01-20T16:25:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106256213591886762005-01-20T16:23:00.001-05:002005-01-20T16:23:00.001-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106256213355568792005-01-20T16:23:00.000-05:002005-01-20T16:23:00.000-05:00I have a bit of a problem with the acuistion in cu...I have a bit of a problem with the acuistion in cultural context argument for morals How does the culture acquire morals,as it would beets in the supermarket? Presumably it then passes the morals and the beets on to individuals . The position indicatd by Richard and ds assume a blank slate human and would leave out all types of biological/genetic reasonings. Chomsky,who I haven't read,seems to be talking of hard wiring for speech. Would such hard wiring not leave the door open for moral concepts of a broad nature? Left to cultural explanations alone we would have to do some mighty "regressing" to find early or first causes. As to astronomy,perhaps it had something to do with the telescope,or absence therof. As to timing Heracleides and Aristarchus commented on heliocentric theories so they at least must have escaped the cultural juggernaut. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2005%2F01%2Fsource-of-morality.html%23comments" TITLE="islraven at yahoo dot com">john t</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106249083882221572005-01-20T14:24:00.000-05:002005-01-20T14:24:00.000-05:00Some moral beliefs may be culturally acquired but ...Some moral beliefs may be culturally acquired but not necessarily all. And the capacity to have moral beliefs certainly is not a cultural acquirement.<br /><br />I'm not sure how you can say that moral beliefs can be true or false in the sense that scientific statements can are. That is the essential difference between the world of morals and the world of facts. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fsockthief.blogspot.com%2F" TITLE="neilnz at hotmail dot com">sock thief</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106235247525571142005-01-20T10:34:00.000-05:002005-01-20T10:34:00.000-05:00"DS argues that the existence of conflicting inter..."DS argues that the existence of conflicting interpretations implies that religion cannot provide an objective basis for morality."<br /><br />This is only part of the argument as it's usually stated, and I believe this partial formation is incorrect. Much better would be to say that the existence of conflicting interpretations--both of which are arrived at in the same manner, through faith--implies that faith (and thus revealed religion) cannot provide an objective basis for morality.<br /><br />You also write, "I don't think many theists claim themselves to be morally omniscient, do they?" But I think they do. It is a popular slogan in the United States that "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." This might not be omniscience, but it's certainly infallibility, and there's just a short hop between them. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.positiveliberty.com" TITLE="jason at positiveliberty dot com">Jason Kuznicki</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106235072725102562005-01-20T10:31:00.000-05:002005-01-20T10:31:00.000-05:00You say that the belief that slavery is morally ok...You say that the belief that slavery is morally ok is false - could you elaborate on how you have reached this conclusion?<br /><br />I guess I'm a moral relativist. My claim is just that I believe that slavery is wrong, and that I further find the thought of slavery so wrong that I would take steps to fight it. So it is subjectively wrong for me. Furthermore it is objectively wrong in the society I live in, which can be seen by reading the law of the land.<br /><br />I cannot claim that it is absolutely wrong, since I do not know of how a moral judgement could be an absolute truth.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Soren <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpixnaps.blogspot.com%2F2005%2F01%2Fsource-of-morality.html" TITLE="spamm at -Ha-kongstad dot net">Soren K</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106234717314364412005-01-20T10:25:00.000-05:002005-01-20T10:25:00.000-05:00"More sophisticated accounts argue that morality d...<I>"More sophisticated accounts argue that morality derives from God's character rather than his commands; but I don't see how that variation fares any better. To assess God in any meaningful way, we must appeal to a standard that is independent of him."</I>I'm disappointed with that reasoning Richard. It doesn't seem that there is much there. I should like to know exactly how a Divine Nature Theory poses the same problem as the Euthyphro Dilemma. I have a professor (Jan Narveson) who claims that the Euthyphro Dilemma is all that is needed to dismiss any conception of a deity at all. Unfortunatly, I think that is a rather simplistic view, I think you have more interesting things to say in your "What Purpose" entry. <br /><br />I was particularily struck by an argument in Alston's "Some Suggestions for Divine Command Theorists" in his <I>Divine Nature and Human Language</I> (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 253-73. <br /><br />In it, he argued that there essentially exists an infinite regress of an 'allegedly ultimate moral standard'. I think that there is some sort of standard by which moral beliefs are to be judged, because, as you pointed out, I think there is a fact of the matter about reality that sometimes does and sometimes does not corresspond to our beliefs about reality. Eventually, as I see it, we have to end up somewhere. And I see no problem with attributing the 'ultimate moral standard' to God's nature, like Alston suggests. It's not evading the question; it is providing an answer to the regress independant of the regress itself.  <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fdinnertabledonts.blogspot.com" TITLE="">Peter</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106229898339115362005-01-20T09:04:00.000-05:002005-01-20T09:04:00.000-05:00I think that you should read CS Lewis's book, mere...I think that you should read CS Lewis's book, mere christianty. In it does he a great job on explaning morallty.  <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fblindwise.blogspot.com" TITLE="mdhislaer at yahoo dot com">Chase Whittemore</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106226480151472102005-01-20T08:08:00.000-05:002005-01-20T08:08:00.000-05:00Sorry, read the article again, had more to say :
...Sorry, read the article again, had more to say :<br /><br />Who said that moral sentiments referred to any facts? This is not an uncontentious claim.<br /><br />What is the difference, in you, between your moral beliefs and your super-ego, if anything?<br /><br />What about false guilt?<br /><br />What about people who don't experience moral sentiments, like psychopaths?<br /><br />What is the "good" anyway - I no longer understand this term in light of my studies. Every time I learn about it, the more I learn it doesn't mean anything consistent.<br /><br />-MP <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?melbournephilosopher.blogspot.com" TITLE="tennessee at tennessee dot id dot au">Tennessee Leeuwenburg</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1106226253785652742005-01-20T08:04:00.000-05:002005-01-20T08:04:00.000-05:00I might simply mention that there is a difference ...I might simply mention that there is a difference between how we psychologically end up with a moral sense (i.e. conscience / superego) and what might be the best moral system should we choose to hold that moral should have a rational basis...<br /><br />-MP <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?melbournephilosopher.blogspot.com" TITLE="tennessee at tennessee dot id dot au">Tennessee Leeuwenburg</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com