Copyright help needed for refutation of "silver bullet" argument againt Atheistic morality

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Jadebrain_Prime, Jun 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    The reason I see no value in this argument is I believe in God for my own personal reasons and personal validations, wheater the accounts of the bible are accurate or not does not really matter to me because I have my own personal wealth of knowledge assertion by my own hard work. Once I was able to understand these things independently only then would I use outside sources such as the bible and other holy books to validate my internal knowledge. And to my surprise it was validated starting from my mathematical theories this was to me beyond coincidence "atemporal logic"
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    I would object that the use of probability alone does not make moral considerations non-objective. First, if certain mainstream interpretations of QM are correct, then the QM probabilities are themself objective, the most objective thing possible, and something more objective than these probabilities does not even exist. So, a moral decision based on complete knowledge about what really exists at a given moment of time would have to be based on probabilities too.

    Then, if a decision was moral or not we base on what was known to the person. If his decision was based on incomplete information, or even wrong information (as far as he honestly believed it is true) and would have been morally justified if all this would have been true, there will be no moral condemnation of his decision.

    This is a quite objective rule - but, as a consequence, the conclusions about what is moral or not depends on subjective facts, namely the knowledge of this particular subject. Thus, it becomes necessary to clarify what means "objective moral": Is a moral which depends in its conclusions on subjective things like the knowledge about reality of a particular subject already subjective, because of this fact? In this case, an objective moral is nothing worth to be considered, at least for me, because it would be in contradiction with my own basic moral principles.

    Once we allow a dependence on the information available to a particular subject in an objective moral system, it is not only the objective probabilities of fundamental physics which can be used in such an objective moral, but also the "subjective" Bayesian probability which is (or has to be) acceptable, at least in its "objective" variant proposed by Jaynes, where the probability theory is simply the logic of plausible reasoning, and the rules which define these probabilities depend, in a quite objective, on the available information, so that two persons with the same information would obtain the same probability distributions.

    And, once we allow that "objective" moral can depend on "subjective" knowledge, what other subjective things will be allowed to influence objective moral decisions?

    A similar strong case can be made about the abilities of the person. If I'm weak women with no experience in fighting, or a strong man, with experience in various combat sports who has worked as a policeman, clearly matters if I appear in a situation were a victim needs defense against an attack. Again, the question if a person has some abilities or not is an objective one. One may morally condemn him for not having cared about his abilities appropriately, but this would be about the past, not about an actual situation where they are given. A morality which would not allow to care about this I would reject as stupid. So, again, or objective morality allows to care about subjective abilities or has to be rejected as inappropriate.

    And, of course, this is not yet all. Once it is accepted that moral has to take into account subjective things like knowledge and abilities, what about subjective interests? How much do my own interests matter? There is no binary distinction but a continuum between inability to do some things because in would cause panic attacks or vomitting and simply not liking to do this. This prescription is quite objective - given a person with all its interests, knowledge and abilities, and a situation where it has to decide how to act, it is a well-defined game-theoretic question what would be the optimal strategy, and, if we could find agreement about all its interests, knowledge and abilities, and the details of the situation, we could reach interpersonal agreement about this optimal strategy. In this sense, it would be an objective moral.

    On the other hand, this moral would be usually name "no moral at all", or, by those who recognize that all our moral rules appear in this moral as rules of the thumb, so that a person following them would be a very moral person judging from its behaviour, as an extremely subjective moral. So, I think those who search for "objective moral" want something completely different - some variant of a authoritarian, totalitarian morel prescribed by some higher autority - God, or some atheistic replacement for this.

    It becomes funny - there are contributions to the content of several people without any personal attacks, and the answer starts and ends with personal attacks. Which makes it more and more plausible that there is some personality problem behind this.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jadebrain_Prime Atheist now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    277
    As long as no one in this thread is going to address anything I say, I might as well return the favor to the people in this thread. I'll be in the thread I made to accommodate the text I couldn't fit in my previous post in this thread, making commentary on anyone here who continues to pretend that they can prove my ideas false without actually addressing any of them. Until the Sciforums staff members stand up for this website's supposed purpose, someone else will have to. It could be me, or it could be the people of the more rational communities I'm going to contact with compilations of the stifling of intelligence and reason that's going on here; really, it could be anyone, but it has to be someone. By Theodore Roosevelt's adamantine cojones, if you have to be shown your own folly by having it reflected back on to you by a certain dubiously "Catholic" troll to whom I've given the link here, so be it!
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    "Why are some outcomes better than others" is a subjective judgement. I suppose you wish it to be otherwise, but no amount of calculated logic can help. It all depends on what your goal is in society. Happiness? Freedom? Social order? Lack of crime? These are not easily quantifiable. Some contradict others. Certainly in a police state, one could eliminate crime, but at the expense of freedom. Perfect freedom often impinges on social order. Pursuit of happiness can effect the happiness of others. You simply can't measure goodness, which makes moral axioms impossible, which makes your endeavor futile.

    You already admitted that you created a broad outline of an approach, and haven't actually used logic to determine an objective moral system. Or have you?
    If this is true, please post it, as the actual working moral system does not seem to be described in your links. Show me how you objectively quantify goodness. Until then, my broad outline of criticisms are entirely appropriate.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2015
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    It is a fairly basic rule of serious debate not to abuse your interlocutor. The reason is simple: if your interlocutor becomes annoyed it far less likely that the responses will shed light on the intellectual problem being debated - indeed it is likely that a descent into an exchange of abuse may occur.

    You have here a thoughtful and articulate response from someone and you reply by accusing the responder of "ignorance, arrogance, and objective laziness". Do you really think this is likely to lead to a high quality discussion?

    It seems to me that the failures, that you bemoan, of the responses to your idea, may in large part be due to your own cackhandedness as a debater.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Quod erat demonstrandum

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Have you considered the possibility that you are overestimating what you've done?

    Most of the world has never heard of Hasting Rashdall. Many adherents of several religions believe fervently that their moral system is both valid and objective. They may even constitute the majority of humanity.


    Unsupported opinion, contradicted by direct observation.

    Many individuals and groups have had no problem at all in developing a secular morality because they have simply ignored Radshall's argument and gone ahead and developed their systems. Regardless of how logical Radshall's argument may appear the fact that secular moralities have been developed rather refutes the value of the argument.

    You probably don't want to hear this, but you seem to have issues. As a general rule I find crazy people generally have crazy ideas. You might want to clean up your mental health a little before you move further publicly with your refutation. I was going to read it, even study, but after that childish outburst from you, I think I'll stay well away. I don't think blind egotism is catching, but I don't want to take the chance.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  11. Jadebrain_Prime Atheist now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    277
    As with everyone else, you're not addressing any of my points. Spidergoat has PM'd me (albeit in an extremely hostile manner, but that's beside the point), and his challenge may imply that he's finally willing to listen to what I've been saying. If that's the case, I will engage him, and I won't even have to attack him as I have before (even though he is attacking me now), because now, I can appeal to reason. As long as he's willing to be rational enough for a debate, I won't have to use anything else. If you look throughout this whole thread, I attacked people because they were refusing to be rational. I was trying to show them that their ad lapidem/straw fallacies weren't rational enough to allow for the possibility of a debate, and in accounting for their demonstrated irrationality, I had to try attacking their pride instead.
     
  12. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Who made Jade the judge on rationality?
     
  13. Jadebrain_Prime Atheist now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    277
    I'm not the judge. These are already established rules for intellectual pursuits as a whole, and I'm the only one here willing to live up to them, apparently. On that end, I'm also PMing Bells about what's going on.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I'd contact your physician while you're about it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    A quite stupid technique. If one uses personal attacks, this is by almost all reasonable people interpreted as evidence that the opponent has no rational arguments. Which is a quite rational assumption, given that everybody, in particular everybody who has lost a debate and is unable to provide further counterarguments, can use personal attacks. People may disagree about what is the adequate reaction to such personal attacks, many prefer to answer symmetrically, other people (including me) recommend to continue with polite answers focussed on the content which interests them, because this underscores the difference between the contentless attack and the contentful response.

    But there is, I think, no disagreement that a personal attack does not indicate any own fallacies or irrationality - except, possibly, for the idea that a rational discussion with the attacker is possible and worth to be tried. To attack their pride shows only that one is to weak to attack their arguments.
     
  16. Jadebrain_Prime Atheist now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    277
    Physician? Even if we assume that your assessment of my mental state is accurate, wouldn't it be better to contact a doctor that deals with psychology, rather than general physical health?

    You've said nothing here that's accurate. Even the one bit of wisdom you've posted here, about a personal attack not indicating a lack of reason in and of itself, was presented in a false statement.

    -If people were reasonable, they'd look for the argument, and they'd critically analyze that. The attack is nothing but emphasis, and so it's separate from the rationale; if there's no rationale for the attacks to emphasize, then you can base your appraisal on that, because at that point, you've got evidence that the person has nothing meaningful to say.

    -If you have to assume, you're being intuitive, not rational. There's a huge difference.

    -You can be as aggressive or as polite as you want; it has no influence on the content of your message. Your claims against me argument were straw/weak men, used to hide the ad lapidem dismissal that you and everyone else has been using. That's more insulting than any hostility could ever be.

    -Plenty of people debate as though hostility is a fallacy in and of itself. The people here have done exactly that. They might claim otherwise after this post, but if they didn't think that hostility was a fallacy, why would they use it as a rationale?

    -The pride that I've been attacking has gotten in the way of the others' ability to acknowledge the hindrance to rational discussion caused by their own irrationality. I've addressed their arguments - there really wasn't much to address, given what "ad lapidem" refers to.
     
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    This poster is eminently worthy of being placed on ignore. A 23 year old layabout with mental issues.
     
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I don't think that is going to help you, it seems you have a very biased veiw of what is going on in this thread.
     
  19. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    I have directly addressed several of your points.

    You asserted that Hasting Radshall had led the world to believe no valid objective moral system was possible. I demonstrated that the world did not believe this. Therefore your assertion was wrong.

    You asserted that his arguments were a silver bullet preventing the development of secular morality. I pointed out that secular morality had been developed. Therefore your assertion was wrong.

    You went on an emotional rampage about the nature of the world's justice systems. I noted that you were expressing unsupported opinions that were contradicted by evidence. I did not provide this evidence since you are the one making claims out of the ordinary, so it rests on you to provide your evidence. You did not do so. Therefore your emotional assertions have been shown to have a high probability of being wrong.

    So that you are clear. I have addressed three of your points. I have shown you to be wrong in two of them and probably wrong in a third.

    Note: If you insist on rational argument from others, the least you can do is follow the same guidelines.

    And you felt that was a rational response to your perception of their irrationality? I notice you have, apparently, refused to be rational in your response to me. Conveniently ignoring the fact that I did respond to a number of your points. Would you like to contemplate the possibility that you are not as smart as you think you are? That maybe you are not as logical as you think you are? That you are not as rational as you think you are?

    I'll make a deal with you. If you will consider those possibilities, I'll consider the possibility that you are not the angst ridden, immature prat you appear to be and that you might have something worth examining more closely.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    In Britain, the first point of contact for non-emergency health issues is the General Practitioner or "GP". That's who I meant. He or she would then refer you to the appropriate specialist, presumably psychiatric in this case.

    But really and honestly, you do come across as unbalanced. It's not just me who thinks this. You seem to think you have made a great discovery, but almost nobody has heard of Rashdall, let alone regarding him as the cornerstone of modern theories of morality, as you seem to think he has been until now. For example, the Wiki commentary on Rashdall's work on this topic, the "Theory of Good and Evil" consists of the following:
    QUOTE
    Scholarly reception[edit]
    The Theory of Good and Evil has been seen as Rashdall's most important philosophical work.[1]

    Philosopher John Rawls writes in his A Theory of Justice (1971) that a position similar to Rashdall's view that the capacity for a higher life may be grounds for treating men unequally is implicit in G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica (1903).[3]

    UNQUOTE

    And THAT'S IT! Nothing more.

    It's all in your head, Jadebrain. You are tilting at windmills.

    P.S. I can't quite resist observing that arguing with you "ad lapidem" - your favourite expression - seems remarkably appropriate, given that Jade is a stone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Developmental disorders are not mental illness. Common misconception. I should know, I have one.
     
  22. Jadebrain_Prime Atheist now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    277
    No, you haven't. I'll address the first two things you've said here for now, and you might be able to infer from these answers some of the things I'll say about the rest of your objections. I'll have to get back to you on the rest, later; I'm still working on my next PM to Spidergoat, and before I can even get back to that, I've got other things I need to take care of in my life, outside of this.

    There's a difference between what you're calling something, and what it is, even in concept. The religious can say whatever they like about their morals systems, but if they can claim that something that's contradictory and arbitrary (the two go hand in hand, after all) is objective and valid, either they don't know what "objective" and "valid" refer to, or they're being deceptive. As I've explained to Spidergoat in our PM's , terms like "objective" and "valid," as well as "logic," "math," and any other term used by formal science aren't just suggestions. These are the studies of possibility itself; from these, you can look for various logical flaws in the very definition (not the same as fallacies, which deal with arguments) of any given thing, and if the definition is flawed, you can show that it isn't possible, even in hypothetical speculation. As for religious morals, this goes beyond the fallacies that they use to propose the morals; if their moral system is logically flawed, you can show that it can't possibly work. If they continue to assert that it works, they'll have to address what you've pointed out, and then you can address that, and so on. Of course, the religious (usually) don't do that, and the people here haven't done that, either.

    I've already clarified my own arguments, and why I'm not saying any of the things that they're objecting to; some of the objections even suggest a lack of even a basic understanding of formal science. In that case, explaining such basic things to these people would be like explaining the Theory of Evolution to the American GOP. It would take a huge amount of time and dedicated effort just for me to give these people the knowledge required to understand how something can be correct or incorrect in that context at all, and then I'd have to explain the more advanced stuff, like boolean expressions, the properties of valid logical systems, the more advanced theorems regarding what can or can't be able to have those properties and why, and so on. After all of that, there's still the fact that I'm dealing with an entire forum of so-called "science," where the prevailing stance the people here have on formal science is to dismiss its validity for the same reasons that Friedrich Nietzsche did, all while still unwittingly having to use a haphazard, intuitive understanding of its concepts, only recognizing what's convenient for themselves without even understanding how it works, just to explore what they are willing to discuss (hint: formal science is what gives the scientific method its validity). At that point, even if I did all of that, can the others here be expected to listen?

    Not only are secular moral systems still as logically invalid as they has ever been, the makers of these ideas have accepted subjectivity and intuition (aka glorified guesses) as being the best that anyone can come up with, because they've accepted the rationale of Rashdall's argument as unable to be defeated. Without an objective basis, there's no rationale. Secular morality hasn't developed; it's scattered.
     
  23. Jadebrain_Prime Atheist now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    277
    And, right on cue: "Murphy's Law." One of my friends has just started having symptoms which are similar to those of a burst appendix (he's still up after several hours, though, so it's likely something else). While I'm tending to him, I'll have to put this stuff on hiatus. I don't know when I'll be able to start posting again.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page