Tossing Around A Tautology

Landon,

We live in the same world.

And I like a world in where competing opinions & dissent exist.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/29, 10:50am)

Post 141

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:09am

William,

Here I reply your post #107, on morality: whether an absolute morality exists --and if we need a Creator to keep it up.

William, you wrote:

I wrote that Rand's "is a biocentric view of morality rather than a theocentric view." Joel replied,
I must disagree: rather than biocentric, her view is "happycentric". And I don't see happiness as the best standard for morality: happiness is subjective -- and fleeting -- while the true standard of morality must be absolute, in the sense of universal --valid for all volitional beings, wherever they may be, whatever their mood is -- eternally.
Rand would say that happiness is the purpose of morality but not the standard.

Then, a better therm perhaps is “happiness-driven.”

My point stands: if happines is the ultimate purpose of morality, then morality is contingent on that goal. This means that Rand would accept all means directing her to happiness.

My view is: morality is a metaphysical condition for civilized human life. Your morality is the gide you use to define your scale of values. Your morality and values are the fundamental constraint to your possible goals, and to the definition of the legitimate means you may use to reach them.

Happiness is a consequence of life-serving actions -- actions that are beneficial to the organism.

Happiness is a value Rand (you, and me) adopted. Actions beneficial to the organism make you healthy, but not necessarily happy.

So, for example, if one is suffering from a toothache, the cause of one's suffering is a decaying tooth, which is harmful to one's health and well-being.

Certaintly, health is one of the more extended values. The realization that one is loosing his health demoralizes that individual.

Quite differently, if you are experimeting feet-ache while ending a marathon, or headache at the moment of finishing a successful exam, you don’t experiment demoralization. That’s because you are reasserting your hierarchy of values, and thus your morality. Consider this: it is possible to experiment pain and pleasure at the same time. That's because you are choosing to assert the highest value.

Drug addicts and alcoholics are not happy people. So the Objectivist standard of morality -- namely, what is appropriate to the health and well-being of the organism -- is indeed "absolute, universal and applicable to all volitional beings."

What you name the “Objectivist standard of morality” is a value. You are mixing values with morality. Morality is the source of values.

I wrote, "According to this view, the good is simply a means to end." Joel replied,

Notice that this is a rewrite of: "[according to this view] the end justifies the means"... a view that I find unacceptable, as it makes morality contingent on the ends.
[...] in one sense, the end does not justify the means, but in another sense it does, because a means to an end is worth pursuing only if it does in fact achieve the end.

We agree here; to pursue some particular (and moral) ends resorting to detrimental means is immoral. But I should stress here: the ends define what means are moral.

William adds: "Are the commandments right, because God wills them, or does he will them because they are right?" I don't see the two options as contradictory. In fact, I see both options as correct. To be consistent, I must say here that morality exists because it is His will.

Morality exists, because human needs and values require it.

I don’t agree with you here. Human values are possible thanks to the existence of morality. Morality is the source of values. Then, the origin of morality is the Creator of it all.

Those values would still exist, even in the absence of a God.

Not agreed. An absolutely, eternally true morality is only possible thanks to the Big I, Who is the Creator of morality.

In fact, a commandment would make morality impossible, because it would force people to act against their moral judgment by preventing them from choosing what they believe to be morally right.

(Christianity is anti-rational, and the Jesus of the gospels, a myth.)

Be aware that “commandment” is the English word for the Hebrew “mitzva”, which more exactly means “instructions.” The instructions of the Creator are 7 for non-Jews, and 613 for Jews. (According to Judaism, only those 7 rules, the “Noahide Laws”, are mandatory in order to save your soul.)

For example, if I force you to rob a bank by threatening you with harm unless you do it, then you are not morally responsible for your action.

True. I was coerced by you. Coerced, but retaining my free will...

Similarly, if God forces you to behave a certain way by threatening you with punishment unless you do it, then you are not morally responsible for behaving that way.

You still retain your free will. Then, in virtue of His benevolence, you are able to check His rules out and see if they actually work or not. (The existence of America is a proof that the values of the "Old Testament", if --more or less-- well interpreted, work.)

I wrote, "If [the commandments] are right, because he wills them, then anything that God wills would be morally right, even murder." Joel replied,

Murder is never condoned by Him. The exact commandment (in Hebrew) means not to slay an innocent person.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't alter the fact that since God is omnipotent, he can issue whatever commandments he chooses, including the commandment to commit murder.

One of His attributes is benevolence. Eternally --He can only be perfectly good, and cannot be 'whimsical' or arbitrary.

To make morality dependent on God's commandments is a form of subjectivism.

On the contrary: in accordance with His attributes, He sets the absolute standard of morality.

A truly objective standard of morality would be independent of God's commandments. It would be a standard that he had no power to change or negate.

The truly objective standard of morality must be eternally generated by Him. And He does not desire to change it: it is the good one.

I noted that In the Old Testament, God commanded Moses to stone a man to death for working on the Sabbath. Joel replied,

You apparntly did the literalist interpretation, which is wrong. Your error (probably) comes from the fact that the Five Books of Moses are about a 5% of the Sinaitic message, lacking of the remaining 95% to be complete. Indeed, rabbinical Judaism says that the Written Torah --the Books of Moses-- alone lack of foundation.

Look, I'm no biblical scholar, but why is it so difficult to imagine God giving such a commandment, when he would torture someone forever simply because the person disobeyed him?

Well, I don’t know what the Hell looks like. Haven’t been there... :-D

Besides, there's no reason to assume that everything that I judge to be moral is also something that God says is moral.

True. We may be wrong --hell, that's part of being a human.

But there are ways to check it out. A precondition is to be intellectually honest. Then use reason and observation; of course, the scientific method is very useful dealing with reality.

Suppose that I regard an act as moral that God doesn't, such as working on the Sabbath to support my family. Must I not regard God's commandments as immoral by that very fact?

Well, I assume you and me are not Jews, so we don’t need to perform Sabbath observance.

Well, if God is omnipotent, he can will anything he chooses.

Let me put it another way: He is benevolent, so He can only will ultimately good things. A quite different thing is that rather often --in example, when in periods of personal ordeal--, we cannot understand Him.

(In matters related to His attributes, we must depart from a position of honest, unprejudiced inquiry.)

- Bill

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/29, 10:54am)

Post 142

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 11:19am

Related to the ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’, Ed writes:

Things are always and only good TO creatures FOR purposes.

True, but notice the following:

How a human¹ defines his purposes, if not by embracing values, that can only be defined by resorting to morality?

That’s why (present or past) bare facts tell us nothing about what is moral: you require a morality in order to define values, and subsequently purposes --the last being what are the right things to do.

Related to the 'Problem of Universals', Ed writes:

Universals are "in" the interaction of mind and reality [...]

True, but here you are begging the core of the question, which is: how we humans relate objects (of reality) --that is, materiality-- with ideas (of the mind) --namely, immaterial reality?

To put in other way: what is the "nature" of that assumed interaction between idea and object? The fact is: currently, we don’t know².

Joel Català

Footnotes:

1: The only known living creature capable of appreciating goodness and purpose is mankind. That’s the mark of morality.
2: In example, the ideas of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein are very much in accordance with this view.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/29, 11:30am)

Post 143

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 2:16pm

Joel, I am sorry to say that I just don't find your ideas make any sense at all. Your description of the problem of universals seems to be no more or less than stating it is a problem not solved by Objectivism, but I see no reasoning or evidence that leads that way.

In addition you give an argument by authority, which is a known logical fallacy:

2: In example, the ideas of Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein are very much in accordance with this view.

Ok, but while I grant Einstein was brilliant, he was not right about everything, even in terms of his area of expertise (science).

Here, you take some facts, namely later, derived facts, and because they come later, assume that other facts cannot come before:

Things are always and only good TO creatures FOR purposes.

True, but notice the following: How a human¹ defines his purposes, if not by embracing values, that can only be defined by resorting to morality?

Morality can be good or bad - but you are assuming all morality is good. Morality itself is simply defining a value that is based on facts and reality, then applying it to reality for a purpose. Defining positive and negative (good or bad) morality then becomes ethics, which is derived from facts - Objectivism uses facts - the fact of human life and flourishing being the fundamental value, and then compares the morality to that to determine the nature of the morality (good, bad, maybe something in between, often it depends on the situation).

According to your idea, you would say bad = killing. According to Objectivism, this is determined something like this:

killing = default bad, because it ends life

killing to defend one's own life = neutral in and of itself - for example, maybe you provoked a fight, fought some guy, he pulls a knife, you have to defend your life, but you also helped create the situation.

killing to defend against naked aggression or protect a child = good

The FACT of killing is neither good nor bad, the MORALITY of what you do is based on your values (good or bad morality) and the definition of whether it is good or bad (the ethics of the morality) is determined by examining the situation in question and comparing it to human life and flourishing as a value - which is derived from other facts, not those facts in particular necessarily.

Objectivism states that individual human life and flourishing require freedom of choice, freedom of values, and the ability to live each life as one chooses, since no one can claim to know all answers.

The question then becomes, what happens when such choices conflict:

The principal of non-initiation of force becomes the guidance, then followed by levels of complexity from there:

Proportionality of response - there are levels of "force" so levels of "retaliation or defense" against such force is permissable.

It all builds from the ground up - it is not based simply upon any old facts plucked from reality, which of course would be absurd, just as absurd as plucking it from thin air - which is all anyone offers from any other mystic or collective perspective.

Post 144

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 2:27pm

Joel,

=============
How a human¹ defines his purposes, if not by embracing values, that can only be defined by resorting to morality?

=============

Taking the following definitions (from m-w.com),

Value
relative worth, utility, or importance

Morality
principles or rules of conduct

... and substituting them for the 2 appropriate words -- your questions reads like this:

=============
How [is it that] a human¹ defines his purposes, if not by embracing [important utilities], that can only be defined by

resorting to [principles or rules of conduct]?

=============

Well, my issue is that you've juxtaposed the natural ordering. It's the 'important utilities' that constrain or define the 'rules (or principles)' -- not the other way around. The reason for this is that life is the ultimate source of value (there could be no value within a life-less universe). This is what Bill meant above, when using the term 'biocentric.'

=============
That’s why (present or past) bare facts tell us nothing about what is moral:
=============

You are right in that isolated bare facts don't conjure up morality in the minds of men. Bare facts tell us exactly the same thing that those bare facts tell animals. What's missing is a human understanding of things (a 'bare understanding'). It's an understanding of bare facts IN RELATION TO happy human life.

That a cup of ricin could kill you many times over -- is a bare fact. Avoidance of drinking from that cup -- even if you are damn thirsty -- stems from an understanding of that bare fact, in relation to it's viability as one of the alternate actions that a moral agent should take, an agent with the twin capacities of life and happiness.

=============
how we humans relate objects (of reality) --that is, materiality-- with ideas (of the mind) --namely, immaterial reality?

To put in other way: what is the "nature" of that assumed interaction between idea and object? The fact is: currently, we don’t know².

=============

Are you asking a philosophical question (one whose answer has immediate benefit for all of mankind), or a scientific question (one whose answer has a marginalized benefit for a pocket of scientists and those few -- e.g. the 'learning disabled' -- who would benefit from a scientific uncovering of the biophysical steps of the process of thinking)?

Since my argument has been stated in a philosophical vein, I will answer it that way (without changing contexts).

Ideas (concepts) are the tools humans use to conceptualize reality. We think with concepts, not of them. When we think with concepts (which have referents in reality), we are not conscious of the concepts of referents, we are conscious of the referents.

For analogy, when you use a telescopic lens to view distant stars in the sky, you are not viewing the lens itself -- the lens is merely a tool that allows you to view that which is unavailable to the naked eye. Concepts are like that, too. Their use allow us to be conscious of things -- abstract things like justice, love, hate, inflation, skullduggery, pi -- that are unavailable to naked perception.

This conceptual awareness of reality, differentiates us from lower animals -- who make only vulgar (a-logical) associations, and otherwise merely react to remembered perceptions.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/29, 2:35pm)

Post 145

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 6:19pm

Joel,

===============
And I don't see happiness as the best standard for morality: happiness is subjective -- and fleeting -- while the true standard of morality must be absolute, in the sense of universal --valid for all volitional beings, wherever they may be, whatever their mood is -- eternally.
===============

Genuine human happiness (Aristotle's eudamonia) is not subjective or fleeting. Here's more on that ...

===============
Like the other schools of the Hellenistic period, the Stoics held that the correct end (telos) for human beings is ¡®happiness¡¯ (eudaimonia) or ¡®living well¡¯ (eu z¨ºn).

http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/stoa/seddon2.htm
===============

===============
Eudamonia is long-term - usually one's whole life. When we ask, 'are you happy in your job' you could answer, 'yes I am perfectly contented in it - I'm not particularly good at it but it satisfies me'. This cannot be true of eudamonia. The Greek word connotes success and acheivement and requires more than contentment and satisfaction.

Also, the same question cannot be asked about eudamonia anyway, for one cannot be eudaim¨n in one respect (e.g. one's job) while not being eudim¨n in another (say, one's marriage). One is either eudaim¨n or not, absolutely.

For a life made miserable by psychological tensions, or by an inability to relate to other people, would not be eudam¨n, no matter how successful it was in other ways.

C.C.W. Taylor in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy says it is the state of having an objectively desirable life, universally agreed by ancient philosophical theory and popular thought to be the supreme human good.

http://academic.regis.edu/proebuck/comment/notesonaristotle.htm
===============

===============
Eudamonia is usually translated as happiness. As understood by the Greeks, eudamonia was not a state but a way of living, and it was inextricably tied to goodness. The Greeks had a teleological view of human life, meaning that there is a natural end toward which human life is directed (telos=end or fulfillment).

This end is determined by the function proper to human beings, and consists in performing that function well. Thus the word which we translate as virtue comes from the Greek arete which is the proper excellence or skill of a particular thing. The arete of a knife is to cut well, just as the arete of a human being is to act according to reason.

http://www.gradesaver.com/classicnotes/titles/ethics/about.html
===============

Happiness (eudamonia) is the best standard for morality: happiness is objective -- and lasting -- it is absolute, in the sense of universal --valid for all volitional beings, wherever they may be, whatever their mood is -- eternally. It has to do with the kind of creatures we are.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/29, 6:40pm)

Post 146

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 6:55pm

To put in other way: what is the "nature" of that assumed interaction between idea and object? The fact is: currently, we don’t know

*You* don't know, but that doesn't mean that no one else knows. Russell and Einstein are cool, but they did not study the biology of the senses.

Vision: photons hitting rods and cones in the retina
Hearing: sound waves to hair cells in the cochlea
Touch: here
Smell: olfaction process
Taste: chemical interactions with tongue (taste buds)
There are other senses, like balance and orientation, but perception in general usually is a mixture of all or some of senses.

This sensory information (aka stimulus) is processed in the brain to help the organism survive: Learning and memory formation are thought to involve structural changes in the brain, specifically at the synapses, but the mechanisms underlying these processes remain elusive. One of the goals of neuroscience research has been to identify and understand these synaptic correlates of mammalian learning and memory. As previously discussed, learning involves an adaptive change in response to a stimulus.

Post 147

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 7:16pm

Joel,

============
We may be wrong --hell, that's part of being a human.
============

But it's not specifically, or even necessarily, part of being human.

Specificality
Every time a cheetah mis-anticipates the direction-changing abilities of the pronghorn antelope -- and ends up wiping out (at speeds of 35-70 mph), he was wrong. There is nothing specific to humans about being wrong.

Necessity
2.5 millenia ago, when Thales said that everything was, ultimately, water -- he was wrong. But everyone following him -- who knew that everything wasn't really, ultimately, water -- was right about that. So this one guy (Thales) and his followers were in error about that, but more than 99% of all humans since -- have been right about everything not, ultimately, being water.

The implication is that being wrong is not a necessary part of being human. After all, more than 99% of us are right about Thales' refuted conjecture. Being wrong is neither necessary nor specific to being human -- but what is?

As it turns out, the opposite view, being 'right' (incessantly recognizing error and self-correcting), is what it is that is specific to human beings on this planet. I once had a dog. I treated him well, with much kindness and compassion -- almost always. In those sparse times when I treated him wrong, I did so with a demanding curiosity.

My dog, Tapper, loved the hell out of me; and I loved him back -- almost always. One sparse exception to my love for him -- can be named 'the door experiment'. If I had shut the sliding glass door (with dog on the other side), and called for Tapper -- he would run into the glass (trying to get to me). Repeat experiments yielding confirming results -- the mutt wouldn't learn. No matter how many times he banged into the glass -- he never gave up.

The point is, is that he was, persistently, wrong. Now, try that with a human infant. Sure, the first time, the tyke (unexpectedly) impacts the glass and goes down in a blaze of glory -- but the tyke won't keep falling for it. And that is what makes human human (the ability to get it -- no matter WHAT it is -- right).

Ed

Post 148

Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 8:25pm

Joel wrote,

My point stands: if happiness is the ultimate purpose of morality, then morality is contingent on that goal. This means that Rand would accept all means directing her to happiness.

Yes, but only certain means will in fact achieve it, viz., acting in a pro-life manner.

My view is: morality is a metaphysical condition for civilized human life.
I don't know what you mean by "metaphysical" in this context. Why not simply say that "morality is a condition for civilized human life." If that is all you meant, then Objectivism would certainly agree.
Your morality is the guide you use to define your scale of values. Your morality and values are the fundamental constraint to your possible goals, and to the definition of the legitimate means you may use to reach them.
Okay, but why is this incompatible with morality's being a condition for civilized human life? Doesn't morality satisfy both objectives?

I wrote, "Happiness is a consequence of life-serving actions -- actions that are beneficial to the organism." Joel replied,

Happiness is a value Rand (you, and me) adopted.
It's not a value that we adopted; it's a value that's part of our nature as a certain kind of living organism. Just as it's impossible for us not to value pleasure and disvalue pain, so it is impossible for us not to value happiness and disvalue suffering.
Actions beneficial to the organism make you healthy, but not necessarily happy.

Not true. If you're experiencing pain, suffering or unhappiness, it means that certain of your biological needs (whether physical or psychological) are not being fulfilled. Happiness and suffering are not miraculous experiences that bear no relation to one's biological nature. They have a source in a person's survival requirements.

I wrote, "So, for example, if one is suffering from a toothache, the cause of one's suffering is a decaying tooth, which is harmful to one's health and well-being." Joel replied,

Certaintly, health is one of the more extended values. The realization that one is loosing his health demoralizes that individual.

Quite differently, if you are experimeting feet-ache while ending a marathon, or headache at the moment of finishing a successful exam, you don’t experience demoralization. That’s because you are reasserting your hierarchy of values, and thus your morality. Consider this: it is possible to experiment pain and pleasure at the same time. That's because you are choosing to assert the highest value.

Yes, it's possible to experience physical pain and psychological pleasure at the same time, insofar as you engage in a course of action that is simultaneously physically harmful and psychologically beneficial -- harmful insofar as running the marathon causes physical trauma to your feet -- beneficial insofar as finishing the marathon gives you a sense of accomplishment, which is an important motivator in the pursuit of life-sustaining goals. But I wouldn't call running a marathon asserting your highest value.

I wrote that "Drug addicts and alcoholics are not happy people. So the Objectivist standard of morality -- namely, what is appropriate to the health and well-being of the organism -- is indeed "absolute, universal and applicable to all volitional beings." Joel replied,

What you name the “Objectivist standard of morality” is a value. You are mixing values with morality. Morality is the source of values.

No, ultimate (non-moral) values -- viz., happiness and self-preservation -- are the source and foundation of moral values, because morality is a means to end; it is not an end in itself. It makes no sense to say that I "ought" to pursue an ultimate end or goal, because the logical question would be: "Why?" "What do I have to gain by it?" "Ought" is a means-concept, which presupposes an ultimate end or goal?" If is only "if" you have some end or goal that you want to achieve that it makes sense to say that you "ought" to do such and such in order to achieve it.

I wrote, "According to this view, the good is simply a means to end." Joel replied, "Notice that this is a rewrite of: "[according to this view] the end justifies the means"... a view that I find unacceptable, as it makes morality contingent on the ends." To which I then replied, "[...] in one sense, the end does not justify the means, but in another sense it does, because a means to an end is worth pursuing only if it does in fact achieve the end."

We agree here; to pursue some particular (and moral) ends resorting to detrimental means is immoral. But I should stress here: the ends define what means are moral.

Yes, but not in the way that you evidently think they do. The ends define what means are moral, because, and only because, what is moral is simply whatever means are conducive to the end.

William adds: "Are the commandments right, because God wills them, or does he will them because they are right?" I don't see the two options as contradictory. In fact, I see both options as correct. To be consistent, I must say here that morality exists because it is His will.

To which I replied, "Morality exists, because human needs and values require it."

I don’t agree with you here. Human values are possible thanks to the existence of morality. Morality is the source of values. Then, the origin of morality is the Creator of it all.

Then what is the purpose of morality? It can't be to obey the commandments of a creator, because the question can always be asked, "Why should I obey his commandments?" For the sake of what end or goal?

I wrote, "Those values would still exist, even in the absence of a God."

Not agreed. An absolutely, eternally true morality is only possible thanks to the Big I, Who is the Creator of morality.

Well, you can say this all you want, but you have yet to provide an argument to support it. So far, it's just an arbitrary assertion.

I wrote, "In fact, a commandment would make morality impossible, because it would force people to act against their moral judgment by preventing them from choosing what they believe to be morally right." Joel replied,

(Christianity is anti-rational, and the Jesus of the gospels, a myth.)

To the extent that they're based on the supernatural, all religions are irrational; all are based on myth.

Joel wrote, "Be aware that “commandment” is the English word for the Hebrew “mitzva”, which more exactly means “instructions.” The instructions of the Creator are 7 for non-Jews, and 613 for Jews. (According to Judaism, only those 7 rules, the “Noahide Laws”, are mandatory in order to save your soul.)

I don't see the difference. The bottom line, according to you, is that if you don't do what God tells you, he'll see to it that you lose your soul. Sounds like a commandment to me.

I wrote that "if I force you to rob a bank by threatening you with harm unless you do it, then you are not morally responsible for your action."

True. I was coerced by you. Coerced, but retaining my free will...

But you weren't able to exercise it, because you were forced to do my bidding.

"Similarly, if God forces you to behave a certain way by threatening you with punishment unless you do it, then you are not morally responsible for behaving that way.'

You still retain your free will. Then, in virtue of His benevolence, you are able to check His rules out and see if they actually work or not. (The existence of America is a proof that the values of the "Old Testament", if --more or less-- well interpreted, work.)

Work? For what purpose? You now sound like you're buying into the idea that the purpose of morality is the satisfaction of human needs and values, because that's the only standard on which capitalism can be said to "work."

I wrote, "If [the commandments] are right, because he wills them, then anything that God wills would be morally right, even murder." Joel replied, "Murder is never condoned by Him. The exact commandment (in Hebrew) means not to slay an innocent person." I replied, "Even if that were true, it wouldn't alter the fact that since God is omnipotent, he can issue whatever commandments he chooses, including the commandment to commit murder."

One of His attributes is benevolence. Eternally --He can only be perfectly good, and cannot be 'whimsical' or arbitrary.

So, you're saying that God is not omnipotent -- that there are certain things he can't do. That's interesting.

I wrote, "To make morality dependent on God's commandments is a form of subjectivism."

On the contrary: in accordance with His attributes, He sets the absolute standard of morality.

That's what I mean by "subjectivism"; God sets the standard of morality by an arbitrary act of will.

I wrote, "A truly objective standard of morality would be independent of God's commandments. It would be a standard that he had no power to change or negate."

The truly objective standard of morality must be eternally generated by Him. And He does not desire to change it: it is the good one.

How do you know? If it conflicts with the requirements of human life and happiness, then it isn't a good one, and if it conforms to those requirements, then it's superfluous and unnecessary.

I noted that In the Old Testament, God commanded Moses to stone a man to death for working on the Sabbath. Joel replied, "You apparently did the literalist interpretation, which is wrong. Your error (probably) comes from the fact that the Five Books of Moses are about a 5% of the Sinaitic message, lacking of the remaining 95% to be complete. Indeed, rabbinical Judaism says that the Written Torah --the Books of Moses-- alone lack of foundation." I replied, Look, I'm no biblical scholar, but why is it so difficult to imagine God giving such a commandment, when he would torture someone forever simply because the person disobeyed him?"

Well, I don’t know what Hell looks like. Haven’t been there... :-D

Well, it's got a pretty nasty reputation, last I heard. Given the existence of Hell, it doesn't sound to me like one of God's attributes is benevolence - quite the contrary!

I wrote, "Besides, there's no reason to assume that everything that I judge to be moral is also something that God says is moral."

True. We may be wrong --hell, that's part of being a human.

If I judge one of God's commandments to be immoral, why should I follow it? And why should I assume that it is I, not God, who is mistaken? Religion demands that we sacrifice our moral judgment to the alleged dictates of a supernatural spirit. This is utterly demeaning, and it is one of the principal reasons why I consider religion to be detrimental to the requirements of human life and happiness. Reality demands that we act on our moral judgment. Religion demands that we act against it when and to the extent that it conflicts with God's. Furthermore, as Rand observes, the moral is the understood, not the obeyed, the chosen not the forced; the moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments. It doesn't matter that you call God's commandments "instructions." A bank robber gives the teller "instructions"; that doesn't make them any less coercive.

But there are ways to check it out. A precondition is to be intellectually honest. Then use reason and observation; of course, the scientific method is very useful dealing with reality.

Are you telling me that an ancient book of myths and stories, like the Bible, constitutes a scientific validation of a supernatural dimension inhabited by angels in heaven and devils in hell, all ruled by a supreme being who keeps a hapless race of human subjects in thrall to his arbitrary will and consigns them to everlasting punishment if they disobey him? This is an adult fairy tale that has no more to do with the real world than Hansel and Grettle's witch, Little Red Riding Hood's wolf, or Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

I wrote, "Suppose that I regard an act as moral that God doesn't, such as working on the Sabbath to support my family. Must I not regard God's commandments as immoral by that very fact?"

Well, I assume you and me are not Jews, so we don’t need to perform Sabbath observance.

What? Are you now telling me that God's commandments don't apply to people who don't believe in them? Besides, keeping holy the Sabbath is not confined to Jews; it applies to Christians as well, since it's one of the Ten Commandments. But it doesn't matter; that was simply an example designed to illustrate the point.

I wrote, "Well, if God is omnipotent, he can will anything he chooses."

Let me put it another way: He is benevolent, so He can only will ultimately good things. A quite different thing is that rather often --in example, when in periods of personal ordeal --we cannot understand Him.

So what you are saying is that when God is evidently not benevolent, he's still being benevolent; it's just that we don't understand him. I guess you'd explain Hell in the same way. Hell is really an expression of God's benevolence and good will instead of a manifestation of his sadism and cruelty; it's just that we don't understand him. Do you see a problem with this analysis? You're assuming that God is benevolent, even when the evidence says that he isn't. Previously, you had said, "But there are ways to check it out. A precondition is to be intellectually honest. Then use reason and observation." Are you being intellectually honest here? Are you using reason and observation? I guess the answer is contained in your following comment:

(In matters related to His attributes, we must depart from a position of honest, unprejudiced inquiry.)

So much for intellectual honesty, reason and observation!

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/29, 11:04pm)

Post 149

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:10am

William Dwyer, wrote:

"[...] ultimate (non-moral) values -- viz., happiness and self-preservation -- are the source and foundation of moral values, because morality is a means to end."

and:

The ends define what means are moral, because, and only because, what is moral is simply whatever means are conducive to the end.

William, with the first sentence, you are telling us that happiness and self-reservation are amoral values;

With the second sentence, you are telling us that you pursue you ends by whatever means are conductive to them...

Can't you see utter amorality in your position?

William Dwyer assumed:

[...] keeping holy the Sabbath is not confined to Jews; it applies to Christians as well, since it's one of the Ten Commandments.

That's the position of some Christian groups. They are wrong, amd blindly assuming their view is correct, you are wrong, too. That's how prejudice and misconceptions spread.

William Dwyer, also asserted:

"Happiness and suffering are not miraculous experiences that bear no relation to one's biological nature."

I never said that: the experiences of happiness and suffering are related to our nature in the most evident manner; but, most relevantly from a morality point of view, happiness and suffering are related to what goals we choose and how we pursue them. Then, our acts carry consequences --to our body, our psyche, and our soul.

Besides, if you can't appreciate the huge miracle of nature, that's a big problem.

I said:

"An absolutely, eternally true morality is only possible thanks to the Big I, Who is the Creator of morality."

And William Dwyer replied:

Well, you can say this all you want, but you have yet to provide an argument to support it. So far, it's just an arbitrary assertion.

Here you have the argument: without an eternal moral being, morality would be temporary, subjectively defined, and ultimately arbitrary, thus, no morality at all. So for morality to exist, He must exist.

William Dwyer also uttered:

"Are you telling me that an ancient book of myths and stories, like the Bible, constitutes a scientific validation of a supernatural dimension inhabited by angels [...]"

Brushing aside your disrespectful tone, with the sentence

"[...] there are ways to check it out. A precondition is to be intellectually honest. Then use reason and observation; of course, the scientific method is very useful dealing with reality",

I meant the following: as the rest of the available written information, the Bible must be approached using the scientific method. That, before making hasty or unwarranted conclusions.

About Hell, William Dwyer stated:

Given the existence of Hell, it doesn't sound to me like one of God's attributes is benevolence - quite the contrary!

You don't need to be a biblical scholar to have the notion that His judgements are based on reward and punishment.

In example: His punishment for atheists is that when they die... its the end of their existence. You see: the perfect self-fulfilling profecy.

By the way, the existence of Hell --whatever it is-- is not a direct expression of His benevolence, but true benevolence includes a sense of justice. When a moral country --founded following Noahide law-- stablishes courts, the goal is not "sadism and cruelty", but the application of a sense of justice. Of course, His justice must be perfect.

I said:

One of His attributes is benevolence. Eternally --He can only be perfectly good, and cannot be 'whimsical' or arbitrary.

And William Dwyer replied:

So, you're saying that God is not omnipotent -- that there are certain things he can't do. That's interesting.

Yes, that's very interesting: subtle is the Lord, dude.

He cannot doubt; He cannot falter; He can't be perfect and imperfect at the same time. Thanks to Him, when dealing with Him, logic and reason always work. Challenging Him with honesty, you are challenging yourself. Making mockery of Him, you are mocking yourself.

At one point, William Dwyer exhorted:

"Why should I obey his commandments?" For the sake of what end or goal?"

Indeed, related to the seven Noahide Laws, the only ones morally compelling for all mankind, those are the Big questions...

Answer #1: out of respect, gratitude, and love for Him. He created you.
Answer #1: your Father is asking you to do your best, why not trying to perform it?

William, I would like to finish the morality discussion with you here.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/30, 3:07am)

Post 150

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:29am

Hey Kurt,

I will try to briefly reply your post.

You say:

Joel, I am sorry to say that I just don't find your ideas make any sense at all. Your description of the problem of universals seems to be no more or less than stating it is a problem not solved by Objectivism, but I see no reasoning or evidence that leads that way.

Maybe I didn't make my points clear enough. Keep in mind that the so-called "Problem of Universals" is a subtle one. I would advice you to read the link about Bertrand Russell's analysis of this problem. Both his English and his argumentation are better than mine.

In addition you give an argument by authority, which is a known logical fallacy:

Well, not a fallacy. I was just comparing my views with the ones of reliable, independent sources. For instance, just as a reinforcing example,

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible."

Albert Einstein in: Physics and Reality, 1936. (Reprinted in A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1954.)

Things are always and only good TO creatures FOR purposes.
True, but notice the following: How a human¹ defines his purposes, if not by embracing values, that can only be defined by resorting to morality?

Morality can be good or bad - but you are assuming all morality is good.

When I say morality, I mean the good morality. I think its proper & efficient make it this way because any given bad morality is wrong, and thus ultimately an amoral "morality".

Morality itself is simply defining a value that is based on facts and reality, then applying it to reality for a purpose.

Well, morality and values are also a part of reality --not of bare facts. If anybody thinks otherwise, he falls into the 'naturalistic fallacy' trap.

Defining positive and negative (good or bad) morality then becomes ethics, which is derived from facts - Objectivism uses facts - the fact of human life and flourishing being the fundamental value, and then compares the morality to that to determine the nature of the morality (good, bad, maybe something in between, often it depends on the situation).

We don't agree here: I don't see ethics can be derived from facts. Valuing human life is 'per se' derived from your morality, with no ulterior factual derivation. The value of life is derived from your morality. (And, like it or not, your morality --and Ayn Rand's one: she was a Jewess-- has its origins in the Bible.)

According to your idea, you would say bad = killing.

Here, at least, you took my words out of context. I never made that simplistic equivalence.

Objectivism states that individual human life and flourishing require freedom of choice, freedom of values, and the ability to live each life as one chooses, since no one can claim to know all answers.

I agree with Objectivism in this point.

It all builds from the ground up - it is not based simply upon any old facts plucked from reality, which of course would be absurd, just as absurd as plucking it from thin air - which is all anyone offers from any other mystic or collective perspective.

Ok, here you have unveiled the 'naturalistic fallacy' pretty well. The key point is that "the ground" from where you build up is not a materialistic one: it is morality, namely, your moral principles --fundamentally, that's why they are named "principles".

Best regards,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/30, 5:18am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/30, 6:30am)

Post 151

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:48am

Joel, to take another point, you are saying here that God believes in tribalism:

William Dwyer assumed:

[...] keeping holy the Sabbath is not confined to Jews; it applies to Christians as well, since it's one of the Ten Commandments.

That's the position of some Christian groups. They are wrong, amd blindly assuming their view is correct, you are wrong, too. That's how prejudice and misconceptions spread.

So, if I am not a Jew, I am somehow a different kind of human? This is, in my mind, one of the fatal flaws of Jewish thought - namely that they are a "chosen people of God" and everyone else is not. This is a good thing to have when you are oppressed for centuries and want to survive, but it is not something that anyone else can expect to have anything but disdain for.

I still see no "naturalistic fallacy" as you describe. The logic is not logical there at all.

Post 152

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:01am

So, if I am not a Jew, I am somehow a different kind of human?

It depends on what you mean by "kind." All humans are human.

But to be an American is not the same as to be a German. National differences --which include some common linguistic, historic, and characteriologic features-- actually count in order to define your worldview.

Additionally, it is not the same an American Christian than an American Jew, or an American Objectivist. All are nationals, they can be perfectly typical American "Average Joes" --with some common linguistic, historic and characteriologic features. But their religion (or philosophical mindset) exerts a great influence on their worldview.

Those points are perfectly compatible with individuality: you can be a healthy, happy individual and a member of a collective at the same time. That can be nationality or associationism. The key point is: by grouping, individuals can help one another and further ther common goals. Business companies can be included in thise description. Howard Roark (strictly) alone would have performed much worse, you could bet on it.

This is, in my mind, one of the fatal flaws of Jewish thought - namely that they are a "chosen people of God" and everyone else is not.

They see their choosenness as a responsibility --they name it "covenant". But it is not a supremacist view: religious Jews are taught to love mankind, and all mankind is described as the "children of God".

According to their books, observant Jews must be a "light unto the nations." I guess all that's a heavy load of responsibility to carry. You can read a pretty "official" Orthodox Jewish description of term here. (And you can ask for questions to experts here.)

This is a good thing to have when you are oppressed for centuries and want to survive, but it is not something that anyone else can expect to have anything but disdain for.

I hope you saw my point. Collaboration is only possible with collective human organization.

I still see no "naturalistic fallacy" as you describe. The logic is not logical there at all.

Feel free to expose where you see the logical flaw.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/30, 9:27am)

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/30, 9:29am)

Post 153

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:26am

But Joel you described keeping the Sabbath - something God decrees - as being confined to one group, Jews, which then says God plays favorites based on ethnicity. Ergo - God is a racist.

I can't point to a flaw in logic because there is no logic I can see to begin with. The whole point makes no sense at all. I am asking that instead of referring me to a website with abstruse language - they even feel the need to spell premise as premiss - (less kindly I would call it bullshit), please phrase it in your own words - because all I have seen are snippets and pieces of arguments, not anything logically coherent.

Post 154

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:33am

But Joel you described keeping the Sabbath - something God decrees - as being confined to one group, Jews, which then says God plays favorites based on ethnicity.

Nothing about favorites: keeping Sabbath is a requirement only for Jews. Of course, you can do what you want on Saturday.

Ergo - God is a racist.

Nonsense: in example, there are black Jews. Jewishness is covenant to a Judaism, that makes no differences with color of the skin. Judaism is a morality-based way of life.

I can't point to a flaw in logic because there is no logic I can see to begin with.

Then we can leave it here with the 'naturalistic fallacy.'

Thanks for your sincerity.

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/30, 9:45am)

Post 155

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:01am

Joel wrote to Bill ...

===============
without an eternal moral being, morality would be temporary, subjectively defined, and ultimately arbitrary, thus, no morality at all.
===============

It's correct that uniformity (universality) is needed to ground and defend morality, but the needed uniformity doesn't have to come from a Supreme 'Being' -- the needed uniformity lies in our own human nature (our identity as humans). The universal human need for esteem -- is an example. Without esteem, you could never live happily -- no matter who you are. The universal human need for knowledge -- is another example. Without knowledge, you could never live happily -- no matter who you are.

In fact, there are several universal human needs -- which ground morality for humans everywhere. And they give rise to objective values.

Ed

Post 156

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:35am

Ed, you say:

In fact, there are several universal human needs -- which ground morality for humans everywhere. And they give rise to objective values.

I see it reversely: morality is a human need. Possibly, the best definition of human is "living moral being."

I see two options:

1) A human can create a moral system --typically the one that "fits better" to him. I think we can agree this is a false morality.

2) A human can recognize the existence of an objective, absolute moral system, not dependent of his being.

Ed, I think that our dissent can be placed here: what is the metaphysical character of the objective, universal, eternal morality.
(If you think it is somehow "engraved" in the human genes, how is that people has free will?.)

Post 157

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:57am

Ladies & Gentlemen,

I am glad to announce that tomorrow I will post my writing answering William Dwyer's reply to my rebuttal of Branden's "anti-Creation" argument.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 3/30, 11:58am)

Post 158

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:59am

I'm looking very foreward to it, Mr. Catala. Love your posts.

Post 159

Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:11pm