Catholic v Protestant: Robert George v Cornel West

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Thunder,

I got about halfway through a point-by-point response to your last post.

Then, I realized what a colossal waste of time it was.

It is apparent to anyone with the ability to reason that you start from a position of absolute and immutable definitions of the origins and nature of morality. You start from this point and argue with incredibly clumsy straw men that do not conform to anything I have written.

You are arguing against amoralism. That’s a neat conversation, but it’s not the one I’m engaged in.[/quote]

I had a feeling you were all hat and no cattle.

You also make a lazy mistake - for purposes of criticizing your model, I am not assuming absolute and immutable definitions of the originans and nature of morality. I simply state that your model offers no anwser one way or the other. You can show 1,400 different “morals” (by your definition) that are all deviations from another that exist as a matter of behavior in the world (and serve some purpose as Means), and your precious model does nothing to prove that there are no moral absolutes (or alternatively, that there are moral absolutes). It simply proves that there are lots of different kinds of behaviors, all of which (save one) could be “immoral”…or all of which could be morally “equal”.

But you wouldn’t know, and you simply wouldn’t a substantiated basis to claim either one after you finished your model. It’s be a complete waste of time from the perspective of answering that central question, because in order for your model to mean anything, you have to assume the one thing you are trying to prove - that Moral Absolutism doesn’t exist.

It’s a flaw of logic. Whether I happen to believe in moral absolutes or not is irrelevant to this central and fatal flaw in what you are setting out to prove.

Oh, and any other tips for how to argue in court, “counselor”?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:
swoleupinya,

i suddenly realize that you didn’t answered one of my question

so i will rephrase it :

if i understand correctly your position, you are an amoralist using Evolution as the philosophical fundement of a vitalist ethic.

so, in this vitalist ethic, how far goes your altruism :
the population you belong to ?
or the biosphere ?

[/quote]

I appreciate your comments, Kamui… I really do.

And, I am halfway convinced that I may be an amoralist. But, I find it difficult to make amoralism and kantian ethics, functionalism and casuistry conform… these, incidentally, are three of my philosophical underpinnings.

I can confidently say that I am not a vitalist, though. Unless, you are using a different definition. Vitalism adheres to the concept of there being a vital force that exists outside of the realm of the physical universe.

So, to answer your question; I don’t know. I struggle with this daily. Some obvious end-games arise from this kind of ethic that are repugnant to me. And, this raises the more troubling question for me of whether or not I may be an example of a genome that is ultimately damaging to the species. Honestly, would we be better off if the world was full of atheists?

It’s a question worth considering.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Honestly, would we be better off if the world was full of atheists?

It’s a question worth considering. [/quote]

Good question. Is it possible to be an atheist as an individual, yet conclude that there may be a necessity in society for widespread religious/moral absolutism, to maintain orderly propagation and transmission of social values? I won’t give an opinion, as mine is obvious enough.

[kamui]

wait, what ?
kantian ethics ?

Kant was a moral absolutist. and a fideist.

ie : his moral was based on… faith

[quote]
I can confidently say that I am not a vitalist, though. Unless, you are using a different definition. Vitalism adheres to the concept of there being a vital force that exists outside of the realm of the physical universe. [/quote]

in this context, i was using vitalist as a counterpart of “humanist”.

humanism make humanity both the source and the end of its morality
you seems to make life the source and the end of yours.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Thunder,

I got about halfway through a point-by-point response to your last post.

Then, I realized what a colossal waste of time it was.

It is apparent to anyone with the ability to reason that you start from a position of absolute and immutable definitions of the origins and nature of morality. You start from this point and argue with incredibly clumsy straw men that do not conform to anything I have written.

You are arguing against amoralism. That’s a neat conversation, but it’s not the one I’m engaged in.[/quote]

I had a feeling you were all hat and no cattle.

You also make a lazy mistake - for purposes of criticizing your model, I am not assuming absolute and immutable definitions of the originans and nature of morality.[/quote]

Bullshit:

"But that isn’t what Morality means or entails - and it never has. Morality is not pure Means - because “rightness” would merely be a function of cost-benefit analysis to some End, no matter how you define that End - and you, of course, make an enormous assumption by starting there for purposes of your model. And this assumption negates the understanding of Morality. So you aren’t really considering Morality from the outset. "

I simply state that your model offers no anwser one way or the other. You can show 1,400 different “morals” (by your definition) that are all deviations from another that exist as a matter of behavior in the world (and serve some purpose as Means), and your precious model does nothing to prove that there are no moral absolutes (or alternatively, that there are moral absolutes). It simply proves that there are lots of different kinds of behaviors, all of which (save one) could be “immoral”…or all of which could be morally “equal”.

Well… no shit? Really? That’s a vast oversimplification of what I’ve been saying, but it’s pretty close. This is what I have been getting at. You don’t seem to be arguing with me about my model. In fact this is one of a few instances in which you have restated my model as a means of showing that it proves or asserts something other than what I have said it proves or asserts… when, in fact, you are agreeing with me that it says exactly what I meant it to say.

That being said, what do you mean by “(save one)”?

[quote] But you wouldn’t know, and you simply wouldn’t a substantiated basis to claim either one after you finished your model. It’s be a complete waste of time from the perspective of answering that central question, because in order for your model to mean anything, you have to assume the one thing you are trying to prove - that Moral Absolutism doesn’t exist.

It’s a flaw of logic. Whether I happen to believe in moral absolutes or not is irrelevant to this central and fatal flaw in what you are setting out to prove. [/quote]

Hello! There we have it… my model is not primarily an attempt to prove that moral absolutism does not exist. As I very plainly and clearly stated at the beginning of the last post on page 15, it is a theory of the evolution of morality.

Oh, and any other tips for how to argue in court, “counselor”?

Yes. Know your subject matter.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Honestly, would we be better off if the world was full of atheists?

It’s a question worth considering. [/quote]

Good question. Is it possible to be an atheist as an individual, yet conclude that there may be a necessity in society for widespread religious/moral absolutism, to maintain orderly propagation and transmission of social values? I won’t give an opinion, as mine is obvious enough. [/quote]

You may find this hard to believe, but my wife and I have long conversations on this exact topic in relation to our two sons. We are seriously considering joining an episcopalian church for the advantages it would offer them in terms of conforming to society.

[kamui]

Is it possible to be an atheist as an individual, yet conclude that there may be a necessity in society for widespread religious/moral absolutism, to maintain orderly propagation and transmission of social values?

it is, and it’s basically my position.

there is many kinds of atheism.
some are philosophically “easier” than other. and these “easy” versions are usually worst than religious faith.

i will be glad if my son show a genuine interest for a religion. not if he remains a nihilist punk past 20.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:
wait, what ?
kantian ethics ?

Kant was a moral absolutist. and a fideist.

ie : his moral was based on… faith

I can confidently say that I am not a vitalist, though. Unless, you are using a different definition. Vitalism adheres to the concept of there being a vital force that exists outside of the realm of the physical universe. [/quote]

in this context, i was using vitalist as a counterpart of “humanist”.

humanism make humanity both the source and the end of its morality
you seems to make life the source and the end of yours.

Sure, I don’t agree with where Kant derived his ethical philosophy from, but I can still agree with the ethic. kantian ethics are essentially the practice of the categorical imperative. In his own words: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

And, to some extent I am a humanist, but I find that most humanists place nearly metaphysical significance on free will. I think it’s a function of evolution.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

"But that isn’t what Morality means or entails - and it never has. Morality is not pure Means - because “rightness” would merely be a function of cost-benefit analysis to some End, no matter how you define that End - and you, of course, make an enormous assumption by starting there for purposes of your model. And this assumption negates the understanding of Morality. So you aren’t really considering Morality from the outset. "[/quote]

Correct - that is concept of Morality, whether I agree that it exists or not, genius.

Well… no shit? Really? That’s a vast oversimplification of what I’ve been saying, but it’s pretty close. This is what I have been getting at. You don’t seem to be arguing with me about my model. In fact this is one of a few instances in which you have restated my model as a means of showing that it proves or asserts something other than what I have said it proves or asserts… when, in fact, you are agreeing with me that it says exactly what I meant it to say.

No, I get your model - it just doesn’t serve any purpose to get anyone closer to understanding the nature and origin of Morality. It just doesn’t.

That being said, what do you mean by “(save one)”?

It means the idea that one Moral is the right way, and all others are the wrong way are thus immoral.

Hello! There we have it… my model is not primarily an attempt to prove that moral absolutism does not exist. As I very plainly and clearly stated at the beginning of the last post on page 15, it is a theory of the evolution of morality.

But it can’t - it’s flawed. The very thing you are trying to prove you assume for purposes of your model. It won’t inform the “evolution of morality” because it won’t tell us anything worthwhile about Morality - you simply assume, for purposes of the Model, that a bunch of behaviors that used to exist and currently exist are “morals”. Well, you have no basis for that assumption.

Yes. Know your subject matter.

Of course, I know the subject matter. You’re just whiney because your precious theory ain’t what you cracked it up to be. But let me guess, you watched a Law and Order marathon and now you are an “expert” on this, too?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Is it possible to be an atheist as an individual, yet conclude that there may be a necessity in society for widespread religious/moral absolutism, to maintain orderly propagation and transmission of social values?

it is, and it’s basically my position.

there is many kinds of atheism.
some are philosophically “easier” than other. and these “easy” versions are usually worst than religious faith.

i will be glad if my son show a genuine interest for a religion. not if he remains a nihilist punk past 20.

[/quote]

Fuck… I am so doomed to this.

I already have a completely unmanageable 4 year-old. In the words of the director of his daycare: “I’ve never experienced a kid his age who was smart enough to argue his way out of anything. How do you discipline him?”

[kamui]

[quote]
Sure, I don’t agree with where Kant derived his ethical philosophy from, but I can still agree with the ethic. kantian ethics are essentially the practice of the categorical imperative. In his own words: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” [/quote]

the categorical imperative itself is “faith based”.

it means “act as if your maxim was an universal law”.

in this “as if” (“als ob” in the original german text) there is both an hypothesis and a hope. it’s the mere definition of faith.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

"But that isn’t what Morality means or entails - and it never has. Morality is not pure Means - because “rightness” would merely be a function of cost-benefit analysis to some End, no matter how you define that End - and you, of course, make an enormous assumption by starting there for purposes of your model. And this assumption negates the understanding of Morality. So you aren’t really considering Morality from the outset. "[/quote]

Correct - that is concept of Morality, whether I agree that it exists or not, genius.

Well… no shit? Really? That’s a vast oversimplification of what I’ve been saying, but it’s pretty close. This is what I have been getting at. You don’t seem to be arguing with me about my model. In fact this is one of a few instances in which you have restated my model as a means of showing that it proves or asserts something other than what I have said it proves or asserts… when, in fact, you are agreeing with me that it says exactly what I meant it to say.

No, I get your model - it just doesn’t serve any purpose to get anyone closer to understanding the nature and origin of Morality. It just doesn’t.

That being said, what do you mean by “(save one)”?

It means the idea that one Moral is the right way, and all others are the wrong way are thus immoral.

Hello! There we have it… my model is not primarily an attempt to prove that moral absolutism does not exist. As I very plainly and clearly stated at the beginning of the last post on page 15, it is a theory of the evolution of morality.

But it can’t - it’s flawed. The very thing you are trying to prove you assume for purposes of your model. It won’t inform the “evolution of morality” because it won’t tell us anything worthwhile about Morality - you simply assume, for purposes of the Model, that a bunch of behaviors that used to exist and currently exist are “morals”. Well, you have no basis for that assumption.

Yes. Know your subject matter.

Of course, I know the subject matter. You’re just whiney because your precious theory ain’t what you cracked it up to be. But let me guess, you watched a Law and Order marathon and now you are an “expert” on this, too?
[/quote]

First point - hundreds, even thousands of years of debate over the meaning of morality, and suddenly you have the final word on it?

Second point - so, I offer that we inherited a number of behavioral traits through evolution. Then, we did a bunch of thinking on the nature of these traits. And, finally we decided to call them morality and assign it a metaphysical value… and, you respond that my theory doesn’t serve the purpose of getting anyone closer to understanding the nature and origins of morality???

Is English your second language?

Third point - Where have I assumed for the purpose of my model that a bunch of behaviors that used to exist and now exist are morals? To the contrary, I have tried to show that the word “morals” and our definition of it is an attempt to define these behaviors and the drives they are predicated on. And that we falsely extrapolated metaphysical significance to attach to them.

Why is this point so difficult to understand? I honestly want to know.

Last point - It was a joke. And, can you please refrain from Ad Hominem.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:

Sure, I don’t agree with where Kant derived his ethical philosophy from, but I can still agree with the ethic. kantian ethics are essentially the practice of the categorical imperative. In his own words: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” [/quote]

the categorical imperative itself is “faith based”.

it means “act as if your maxim was an universal law”.

in this “as if” (“als ob” in the original german text) there is both an hypothesis and a hope. it’s the mere definition of faith.

Well, then I suppose I’m not a kantian

Take out the faith part, and it works for me.

[swoleupinya]

Okay… the obvious contradiction there (ad hominem) was meant to be a joke.

In retrospect it was in bad taste.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Take out the faith part, and it works for me. [/quote]

You put too much faith into anti-faith.

Woah, I want credit for that when it starts getting quoted. I’m deeper than the blue, blue, ocean.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Take out the faith part, and it works for me. [/quote]

You put too much faith into anti-faith.

Woah, I want credit for that when it starts getting quoted. I’m deeper than the blue, blue, ocean.[/quote]

It’s funny… i’ll give you that.

But, faith by definition, has no antithesis. This is one of the many reasons why I don’t put much stock in it.

An interesting aside that could perhaps be an entirely different thread: Where did the cognitive tool of faith arise from?

I have a pet theory, but I’m sure it’s illogical and circularly presumptive.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

First point - hundreds, even thousands of years of debate over the meaning of morality, and suddenly you have the final word on it?[/quote]

It’s not my word - the concept of Morality means something other than “whatever someone wants to define it as”.

Second point - so, I offer that we inherited a number of behavioral traits through evolution. Then, we did a bunch of thinking on the nature of these traits. And, finally we decided to call them morality and assign it a metaphysical value… and, you respond that my theory doesn’t serve the purpose of getting anyone closer to understanding the nature and origins of morality???

First, not quite sure this is the most original theory, but self-back patting seems to work for you. Second, no, it doesn’t much inform the purpose of getting closer to the understanding of Morality for all the reasons stated above.

Is English your second language?

Of course, more of the same. I get it - you are an amateur desperate to be taken seriously, and when someone has the audacity to confront your pet theory (which isn’t all that novel - read Descent of Man for starters), it becomes personal. Not my problem to fix.

Third point - Where have I assumed for the purpose of my model that a bunch of behaviors that used to exist and now exist are morals? To the contrary, I have tried to show that the word “morals” and our definition of it is an attempt to define these behaviors and the drives they are predicated on. And that we falsely extrapolated metaphysical significance to attach to them.

You have to for purposes of your model. What other assumption you could you possibly use? What basis could you possibly have for designated some behaviors “morals” and others “not”? If the only criterion is that the behavior promotes a biological End, under your theory, what isn’t a “moral”?

Second, your model couldn’t prove that we “falsely extrapolated metaphysical significance to them”. That would be Step Two at any rate, which you can’t prove, even if you got past Step One, which is proving Moral Absolutism doesn’t exist.

In fact, you don’t even need a “model”.

Why is this point so difficult to understand? I honestly want to know.

I understand it fine. You are just very immature and you can’t take substantive criticism well. At the end of your “modeling”, we are left in no better a position than we are as we sit here today to answer the question “well, does Moral Absolutism exist? And does it come from a God?”

Last point - It was a joke. And, can you please refrain from Ad Hominem.

You are confused as to what constitutes an ad hominem. Don’t confuse an ad hominem with a basic insult. And, more importantly, don’t invite insults by posturing as a preening know-it-all who thinks he’s an “expert” on every topic. Your pretentiousness will be your downfall.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I have a pet theory, but I’m sure it’s illogical and circularly presumptive.[/quote]

Well you called faith a ‘tool’, so I’m going to assume you see it as one (perhaps the most successful?) adaption?

[swoleupinya]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

First point - hundreds, even thousands of years of debate over the meaning of morality, and suddenly you have the final word on it?[/quote]

It’s not my word - the concept of Morality means something other than “whatever someone wants to define it as”.

Second point - so, I offer that we inherited a number of behavioral traits through evolution. Then, we did a bunch of thinking on the nature of these traits. And, finally we decided to call them morality and assign it a metaphysical value… and, you respond that my theory doesn’t serve the purpose of getting anyone closer to understanding the nature and origins of morality???

First, not quite sure this is the most original theory, but self-back patting seems to work for you. Second, no, it doesn’t much inform the purpose of getting closer to the understanding of Morality for all the reasons stated above.

Is English your second language?

Of course, more of the same. I get it - you are an amateur desperate to be taken seriously, and when someone has the audacity to confront your pet theory (which isn’t all that novel - read Descent of Man for starters), it becomes personal. Not my problem to fix.

Third point - Where have I assumed for the purpose of my model that a bunch of behaviors that used to exist and now exist are morals? To the contrary, I have tried to show that the word “morals” and our definition of it is an attempt to define these behaviors and the drives they are predicated on. And that we falsely extrapolated metaphysical significance to attach to them.

You have to for purposes of your model. What other assumption you could you possibly use? What basis could you possibly have for designated some behaviors “morals” and others “not”? If the only criterion is that the behavior promotes a biological End, under your theory, what isn’t a “moral”?

Second, your model couldn’t prove that we “falsely extrapolated metaphysical significance to them”. That would be Step Two at any rate, which you can’t prove, even if you got past Step One, which is proving Moral Absolutism doesn’t exist.

In fact, you don’t even need a “model”.

Why is this point so difficult to understand? I honestly want to know.

I understand it fine. You are just very immature and you can’t take substantive criticism well. At the end of your “modeling”, we are left in no better a position than we are as we sit here today to answer the question “well, does Moral Absolutism exist? And does it come from a God?”

Last point - It was a joke. And, can you please refrain from Ad Hominem.

You are confused as to what constitutes an ad hominem. Don’t confuse an ad hominem with a basic insult. And, more importantly, don’t invite insults by posturing as a preening know-it-all who thinks he’s an “expert” on every topic. Your pretentiousness will be your downfall.
[/quote]

Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Fortunately for me, I haven’t deviated from this definition.

I did finally manage to find my theory expressed somewhere else… seems pretty obvious, but it’s called evolutionary morality… it just took the right google search. Now, I have a good reading list. Incidentally, as I have stated many times, I do not hold that my theory is in any sense original.

I’ll accept your criticism of my attempted joke… I recognized it to be in bad taste, before you even responded.

To the point of circular logic and assumptions:
Perhaps a better way of stating it is that what we have defined as morals all have precursors that can be traced to the behaviors of other animals. There is no need here for “morals” at the outset. Nor is there a need to necessarily categorize all behaviors as morals or not.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I have a pet theory, but I’m sure it’s illogical and circularly presumptive.[/quote]

Well you called faith a ‘tool’, so I’m going to assume you see it as one (perhaps the most successful?) adaption?[/quote]

It is a distinct possibility.