ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 9th August 2018, 04:50 AM   #1
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,768
Morality/ethics and suppositions. For the philosophy minded

If you hate/dislike philosophy as a form of wisdom and not rational knowledge, don't read on. If you do, you have been warned and it is your problem, if you experience discomfort and what not as really, really useless and what not.

In philosophy there is the idea of a system. A system can about all of reality or a part of it.
In morality/ethics a system is a justified with reason, logic and so on objective supposition(s). The problem is that, it can't be done with something, which is only based on with reason, logic and so on objective(any version of objective) supposition(s).

So here it is as a duality within the inter-subjective part of reality, where we are all equal as humans and different as individuals.
You can't achieve in practice an inter-subjective morality without treating all humans as sacred even in a non-religious, humanistic and secular sense. It is nothing unless you understand that in practice the only scared there is, are you, me and the rest of humanity.

It is a type of qualia in that you can't get it with observation, evidence, reason, logic and so on. Either you get it or you get it differently.

An inter-subjective morality, which has to be about all humans, requires some form of non-rational supposition. Not irrational, but non-rational. Without any objective reason, logic, evidence, facts and so on.

It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or religious. It matters if you get that all humans are sacred or you get it differently.
In the context of religion even as an atheist I belong to unitarian universalism even as I am not a member.
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

I am spiritual, secular, a skeptic, atheist, humanist and a believer(supposition) in the the inherent worth and dignity of every person. That I am still working on that as I still have hate in me. So I try to do the work every day and yes, I still fail. You are a human, warts and all, and I am a human, warts and all.

Regards
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:12 AM   #2
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,126
If you're saying that ethics requires axioms, then I can't see anything wrong with that statement. I wouldn't phrase it as "all humans are sacred," because the word "sacred" has very little meaning for me. I'd prefer to start from the Golden Rule, as extended to consider other people's desires being different to mine; but that's still an axiom, and as such a starting point rather than something that can be rationally derived.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:13 AM   #3
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
If you're saying that ethics requires axioms, then I can't see anything wrong with that statement. I wouldn't phrase it as "all humans are sacred," because the word "sacred" has very little meaning for me. I'd prefer to start from the Golden Rule, as extended to consider other people's desires being different to mine; but that's still an axiom, and as such a starting point rather than something that can be rationally derived.

Dave
Yeah, you are right. I overdid it.
But yes, that's still an axiom, and as such a starting point rather than something that can be rationally derived.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:17 AM   #4
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 82,449
And?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:23 AM   #5
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,126
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yeah, you are right. I overdid it.
But yes, that's still an axiom, and as such a starting point rather than something that can be rationally derived.
Which just means that it's not turtles all the way down. I think anyone who understands philosophy, logic or mathematics also understands that a train of reasoning has to start somewhere, and that somewhere is defined as a set of axioms. And the corollary of that is that axioms cannot be proven.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:31 AM   #6
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 19,025
If I understand you, you see all foundationalist approaches to morality/ethics as doomed to failure and build on a concept you have chosen for its aesthetic appeal. Do you think this might be a universal human aesthetic or a choice you make? The latter I understand to be Kirkerguard/ Nietzsche existential choices in the face of doomed foundationalism.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:31 AM   #7
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 82,449
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Which just means that it's not turtles all the way down. I think anyone who understands philosophy, logic or mathematics also understands that a train of reasoning has to start somewhere, and that somewhere is defined as a set of axioms. And the corollary of that is that axioms cannot be proven.

Dave
If I understand what you are saying I would say "And the corollary of that is that axioms cannot formally be proven."

So I would say you can for all extent and purposes "prove" your axiom is right pragmatically, when I chose X Y "always" follows, when I want Y to happen I "always" X.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:38 AM   #8
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,126
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
If I understand what you are saying I would say "And the corollary of that is that axioms cannot formally be proven."
Yes, that's right.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So I would say you can for all extent and purposes "prove" your axiom is right pragmatically, when I chose X Y "always" follows, when I want Y to happen I "always" X.
That would answer the question of whether the set of axioms is appropriate for the purpose to which they're put. That's not the same as "right". For example, the Golden Rule is an appropriate axiom to bring about a world in which everyone is treated, as much as possible, as they would like to be (or feel that it's appropriate to be) treated; but regarding such a world as a better world than a different kind is a different axiom, and clearly not one everybody shares. For example, many people feel that the best possible world is one in which people like them obtain the best treatment, at the expense of people not like them (for whatever definition of "people like me" they choose), and working from that axiom results in a very different morality.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 05:40 AM   #9
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 82,449
I think you put that well.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 10:53 PM   #10
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,970
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or religious.
It matters. Doing something because you feel the inner duty to do it is not the same than doing the same thing because a strong authority orders you to do it.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:45 PM   #11
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,844
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, that's right.



That would answer the question of whether the set of axioms is appropriate for the purpose to which they're put. That's not the same as "right". For example, the Golden Rule is an appropriate axiom to bring about a world in which everyone is treated, as much as possible, as they would like to be (or feel that it's appropriate to be) treated; but regarding such a world as a better world than a different kind is a different axiom, and clearly not one everybody shares. For example, many people feel that the best possible world is one in which people like them obtain the best treatment, at the expense of people not like them (for whatever definition of "people like me" they choose), and working from that axiom results in a very different morality.

Dave
If it's different for different people then it isn't an axiom.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2018, 11:55 PM   #12
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,126
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
If it's different for different people then it isn't an axiom.
[citation needed]

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 12:56 AM   #13
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,254
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
[citation needed]

Dave
We need a definition of the word:

"The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning."
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 02:50 AM   #14
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,970
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
If it's different for different people then it isn't an axiom.
Euclidian axioms are different from Lobachevsky's axioms. However, they are axioms for its respective mathematical systems. An axiom is a point of departure that has not a demonstration into the system.
I suppose that the word "axiom" is used in an analogic way here.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 08:00 AM   #15
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,374
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
If you hate/dislike philosophy as a form of wisdom and not rational knowledge, don't read on. If you do, you have been warned and it is your problem, if you experience discomfort and what not as really, really useless and what not.
Hi, Tommy. I'm a bit of an amateur philosopher myself. I think it's an interesting topic, and I wish most of the members of this forum didn't have such an inherent revulsion to the subject. Hopefully, all of this will make you slightly more receptive to what I'm about to say.

With the exception of the first paragraph, I understood absolutely nothing you said in the OP. I read and re-read every single sentence. Not one of them was understandable. If I had any idea what your point was, I could give you some advice on making yourself more clear. The only tip I can give is to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, with ample proofreading. Try to state your conclusion early on, so we can know what your point is. The following paragraphs should outline the evidence for your conclusion.

Good luck.
I Am The Scum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 08:24 AM   #16
calebprime
moleman
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,157
Originally Posted by calebprime;

I discuss philosophy here as a form of wisdom as opposed to a form of strictly rational knowledge. If this approach bothers you, you don't have to read more.

In philosophy there is the idea of a system. A system can about all of reality or just a part of it.

In morality/ethics a system is justified with reason, logic and so on: objective supposition(s). The problem is that morality/ethics also requires subjective or emotional suppositions -- such as that survival is desirable.

Here the reality of moral sentiments is inter-subjective -- part of our sharing as humans, and I would contend that you cannot achieve in practice a real intersubjective morality without treating each and every human as sacred. I would contend that this amounts to nothing unless you realize this is the only sense of and source of the sacred that there is: You, me and the rest of humanity.

The moral sense is like the ability to taste -- it is the ability to apprehend a quality --that of justice. This taste can't be based solely on a rational calculus -- without this moral sense.

An inter-subjective morality, which has to be about all humans, requires some form of non-rational supposition. Not irrational, but non-rational.

I belong to unitarian universalism even as I am not a member.
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles

I am spiritual, secular, a skeptic, atheist, humanist and a believer(supposition) in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. That I am still working on that as I still have hate in me. So I try to do the work every day and yes, I still fail. You are a human, warts and all, and I am a human, warts and all.

Regards
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Hi, Tommy. I'm a bit of an amateur philosopher myself. I think it's an interesting topic, and I wish most of the members of this forum didn't have such an inherent revulsion to the subject. Hopefully, all of this will make you slightly more receptive to what I'm about to say.

With the exception of the first paragraph, I understood absolutely nothing you said in the OP. I read and re-read every single sentence. Not one of them was understandable. If I had any idea what your point was, I could give you some advice on making yourself more clear. The only tip I can give is to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, with ample proofreading. Try to state your conclusion early on, so we can know what your point is. The following paragraphs should outline the evidence for your conclusion.

Good luck.
I tried an edit to make it sound more like standard English, then just reprinted the last part almost whole. Sorry if I got stuff wrong.

Most of the time, if I make a lot of effort, I can understand what he's saying, but there is always this additional language effort.

I'm not doing this to be a smart-ass. This is genuinely what I have to do internally to make sense of some posts -- edit them in something more like my own voice.

I don't think he's ever rude, fwiw.

Last edited by calebprime; 10th August 2018 at 08:26 AM.
calebprime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 12:07 PM   #17
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
I tried an edit to make it sound more like standard English, then just reprinted the last part almost whole. Sorry if I got stuff wrong.

Most of the time, if I make a lot of effort, I can understand what he's saying, but there is always this additional language effort.

I'm not doing this to be a smart-ass. This is genuinely what I have to do internally to make sense of some posts -- edit them in something more like my own voice.

I don't think he's ever rude, fwiw.
Thanks.

It explains a lot and I see your point.

In a sense it makes me sad that I write Continental English, but that is how it is and I can't do anything differently without a lot of effort.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 04:30 PM   #18
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,844
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
We need a definition of the word:

"The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning."
I am using it in the classic philosophy manner, I suppose, so I can see now how it could also be interpreted as changing with differing circumstances.

I think that, as I've said before, as used in a strict scientific sense, axioms can be applied to human behavior and thus to human concepts of morality. It seems to me that most people are stuck in the rut of morals being subjective only depending on circumstances of culture, for example, and I think that's too shallow and nonsensical, though I will quickly add that it seems logical enough when we can pick a subject like murder and see differing laws in differing cultures related to that subject; I think those differences can be explained and more importantly those differences can be changed to fall more in line with a set of eventual moral axioms. It will take effort and work but I think worthwhile, just as in so-called hard sciences discovering and building upon axioms has proven worthwhile and advancing the human race to a more successful degree than before we started that process.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:23 PM   #19
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 19,025
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I am using it in the classic philosophy manner, I suppose, so I can see now how it could also be interpreted as changing with differing circumstances.

I think that, as I've said before, as used in a strict scientific sense, axioms can be applied to human behavior and thus to human concepts of morality. It seems to me that most people are stuck in the rut of morals being subjective only depending on circumstances of culture, for example, and I think that's too shallow and nonsensical, though I will quickly add that it seems logical enough when we can pick a subject like murder and see differing laws in differing cultures related to that subject; I think those differences can be explained and more importantly those differences can be changed to fall more in line with a set of eventual moral axioms. It will take effort and work but I think worthwhile, just as in so-called hard sciences discovering and building upon axioms has proven worthwhile and advancing the human race to a more successful degree than before we started that process.
Once you start wielding terms like “murder” you have made the move from the descriptive to the normative. Ideas about if at all or in what circumstances a human life can be taken do not seem universal at all.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 06:29 PM   #20
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,151
I got confused half way through all of that, what I did get out of it was basically this,
" It doesn't require logic or reason to acknowledge the dignity of your fellow human. It only matter's that you believe that human's deserve to be treated with dignity."
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 08:59 PM   #21
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,844
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Once you start wielding terms like “murder” you have made the move from the descriptive to the normative. Ideas about if at all or in what circumstances a human life can be taken do not seem universal at all.
Yes, I'm aware which is why I chose the term; I'm using a term which is, as you're saying, a normative one and one which cannot be used as an axiomatic basis. I'm trying to draw it out a bit more so that we can ostensibly get closer to what an axiom could be so that we can then begin to build a structure on it.

I would honestly love to do more work on this concept as I firmly believe it could be a fruitful endeavor but alas, I'm not very well trained in formal logic nor have a broad, comprehensive knowledge base in philosophy.

I might be a talented amateur but that's about it besides natural intelligence. What I would wish is if a person who has a deep foundational knowledge of philosophy actually drop the dead-end nonsense about whether or not we're in the Matrix or other crap like that. It's a dead horse and won't be coming back to life any time soon.

See, that's one of the reasons I doubt the experience levels of a few here who claim some sort of professional level or expert knowledge in philosophy; I get it that it may not be interesting to those individuals, but they still never seem to even play around with it as a thought experiment and I don't understand why.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2018, 11:48 PM   #22
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I got confused half way through all of that, what I did get out of it was basically this,
" It doesn't require logic or reason to acknowledge the dignity of your fellow human. It only matter's that you believe that human's deserve to be treated with dignity."
Yeah
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2018, 01:55 AM   #23
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,768
Hi The Norseman
calebprime, I might need your help

Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Yes, I'm aware which is why I chose the term; I'm using a term which is, as you're saying, a normative one and one which cannot be used as an axiomatic basis. I'm trying to draw it out a bit more so that we can ostensibly get closer to what an axiom could be so that we can then begin to build a structure on it.

I would honestly love to do more work on this concept as I firmly believe it could be a fruitful endeavor but alas, I'm not very well trained in formal logic nor have a broad, comprehensive knowledge base in philosophy.

I might be a talented amateur but that's about it besides natural intelligence. What I would wish is if a person who has a deep foundational knowledge of philosophy actually drop the dead-end nonsense about whether or not we're in the Matrix or other crap like that. It's a dead horse and won't be coming back to life any time soon.

See, that's one of the reasons I doubt the experience levels of a few here who claim some sort of professional level or expert knowledge in philosophy; I get it that it may not be interesting to those individuals, but they still never seem to even play around with it as a thought experiment and I don't understand why.
Okay, philosophy short:

Part 1
All kinds of metaphysics and ontology are in effect psychology. They say something about how humans think and not what reality really is.
The evidence for this is you can get away with believing what you want about what reality really is as long as you follow the objective parts and still be a part of reality.
Example: If reality is physical in the strong universal, absolute and objective sense, then I couldn't think, believe and write: No! But I can, so reality is not physical in the strong universal, absolute and objective sense.

Part 2
Logic! You have to learn more about logic including fallacies and so on, but for the purpose of morality, you only need to learn this and the is-ought problem:
Reality is not logical.
Test: Reality is logical. Counter-argument: No!
The law of non-contradiction is about something(not everything) in a given sense and at a given time and place. Since you and I are at different places, you can't be a contradiction just because you are not me. That also holds in reverse.
So for you doing X and I doing non-X as Y, they are not contradictions, because they are not at the same place, time and in the same sense.

Part 3a
Epistemological rationalism and foundationalism.
All attempts at finding a self-evident axiom have failed, because all self-evident axiom are tautologies and vacuous. Vacuous means that nothing follows with reason from a self-evident axiom.
Example: That A=A only tells you that and you can't do anything else with that.
Part 3b
Rationalism and logic.
The is-ought problem. From the fact, that I can kill other humans (it is so as a fact), doesn't follow if I should/ought to or not. You can't rationally deduce if you should or shouldn't kill another human and you can't tell form the fact that you can kill another human, if it is good/right or bad wrong.
Part 3c
Empiricism.
You can't see, touch, smell, taste or hear right/good or wrong/bad. It is subjective as it happens in your brain and is not observer-independent.

Part 4
Meta-ethics.
How do you know right/good or wrong/bad?
What are right/good or wrong/bad?
They are subjective processes in you. They happen in your brain as thinking/feeling/emotions and can't be universal, absolute and objective, because I can think/feel/have emotions differently that you and that is a fact.
Limited cognitive/psychological/moral relativism in a universe with humans is as much a fact as gravity is a fact.

The reason, that you can believe that morality can be made universal, absolute and objective, is because you can get away with believing that subjectively.
But that you can get with that and I can get away with believing in limited cognitive/psychological/moral relativism, is proof of limited cognitive/psychological/moral relativism.

Regards
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2018, 02:40 AM   #24
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,970
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post

Part 1
All kinds of metaphysics and ontology are in effect psychology. They say something about how humans think and not what reality really is.
Bad beginning. This is a confuse sentence.
In a broad sense everything that man does is "psychology". Art is "psychology"; sport is "psychology"; war is "psychology"... everything informs us what humans think and do. (I think it would be better to say "anthropology", but I don't know how you are using words).

In a more specific sense "ontology" is not anthropology. Your first sentence is settled on the false supposition that we cannot speak about phenomena. This is false. Not any sentence about phenomena is subjective. You make a false equation: not (absolutelly) objective= (absolutelly) subjective because you think as a metaphisical idealist. White or black.

There is not a way to discuss with you under this radical supposition.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2018, 03:03 AM   #25
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Bad beginning. This is a confuse sentence.
In a broad sense everything that man does is "psychology". Art is "psychology"; sport is "psychology"; war is "psychology"... everything informs us what humans think and do. (I think it would be better to say "anthropology", but I don't know how you are using words).

In a more specific sense "ontology" is not anthropology. Your first sentence is settled on the false supposition that we cannot speak about phenomena. This is false. Not any sentence about phenomena is subjective. You make a false equation: not (absolutelly) objective= (absolutelly) subjective because you think as a metaphisical idealist. White or black.

There is not a way to discuss with you under this radical supposition.
Everything is not only one of these alone individually as gravity, science, philosophy, psychology and so on.
But metaphysics/ontology and what reality really is are psychology. Of course we can speak about phenomena, but what is the status of "speaking", when we do it within metaphysics/ontology and what reality really is.
You didn't tackle the "what reality really is"?!!

Metaphysics/ontology AND what reality really is, is nothing but rationalism running amok. And that is a form of psychology. It says something about what a given person think real is. The problem is that real is subjective and not objective.
If there are limits as to what we can speak of, then there is a limit to speaking of objectively real, including what reality really is.

We can speak about metaphysics/ontology as form of epistemology as what we can say about knowing, but because knowing is not absolute, universal and objective as we can't use it on all of reality, we then end up with beliefs. Including different beliefs about what reality really is.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2018, 09:56 AM   #26
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,679
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Once you start wielding terms like “murder” you have made the move from the descriptive to the normative. Ideas about if at all or in what circumstances a human life can be taken do not seem universal at all.
I would disagree. The universality of murder is in regard to the in group. It's murder when a member of the in group dies but not when someone outside the group dies.

Homogeneous societies have fewer crimes against members than heterogeneous societies. The difficulty in achieving equality in heterogeeous societies is in expanding the in group to include people who are noticeably different. That goes against a lot of human evolutionary development.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2018, 11:57 AM   #27
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
I would disagree. The universality of murder is in regard to the in group. It's murder when a member of the in group dies but not when someone outside the group dies.

Homogeneous societies have fewer crimes against members than heterogeneous societies. The difficulty in achieving equality in heterogeeous societies is in expanding the in group to include people who are noticeably different. That goes against a lot of human evolutionary development.
Correct and that requires that we know this and "replaces" with a combinations of rules and emotions, being "all humans are equal", the golden rule, "all humans are sacred and have dignity".
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2018, 07:18 PM   #28
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,679
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Correct and that requires that we know this and "replaces" with a combinations of rules and emotions, being "all humans are equal", the golden rule, "all humans are sacred and have dignity".
Those have been around for thousands of years, with a version belonging to just about every culture, and yet they haven't worked. A system of laws, applied evenly across all members would seem to be the best system but once again we run into issues in that regard. The more value to the dispute, the smaller the in group shrinks as people try to funnel the proceeds to themselves, their family, and their friends.

We also see how fragile heterogeneous societies are with one leader being able to tear apart nations of millions.

Lately I have begun to think that the only real hope for equality will come in the form of laws decided, applied, and enforced by computer algorithms blind to wealth, race, social status, etc.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2018, 07:33 PM   #29
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,844
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Lately I have begun to think that the only real hope for equality will come in the form of laws decided, applied, and enforced by computer algorithms blind to wealth, race, social status, etc.
Oh, I'd love something like that. It'd never happen, though, because something like that would preclude capitalism and if there's anything that Americans and/or "the West" would die for is capitalism.

I'll definitely dream of that tonight and sleep rather well. Unless I'm actually in the Matrix that's been created by a butterfly that's just musing on the universe on the way to the corner store.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2018, 03:20 PM   #30
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,679
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Oh, I'd love something like that. It'd never happen, though, because something like that would preclude capitalism and if there's anything that Americans and/or "the West" would die for is capitalism.
I agree. Protecting the rich from the poor is the whole idea behind laws and police forces.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.