Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This makes about as much sense as saying that a random mutation that helps us survive is the only source of religion.

Evolution may be responsible for our ability to reason, or to have faith, but that does not diminish the quality of our reasoning or the power of our faith.

It makes sense if you think reason can not be the basis of morality.

Before I made the following query:

What is wrong with this statement:

If morality is not based purely on ones self interest, then if someone uses the word morality, right or wrong (in the moral sense) in a conversation withsomeone else, those words can really only have meaning if the communicater and the person being communicated with agree on a common moral code.

The point being that either you agree on a code (like the ten commandments) or you agree on selfishness. Absense that you can have no foundation for morality. You can't reason out morality. Like I said before - why is killing innocent wrong. Absense a selfish argument (ie - if we let innocent people get killed then I am next) you can not come up with a logical explanation of why killing is wrong. You must just agree that it is.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
It makes sense if you think reason can not be the basis of morality.

Before I made the following query:

What is wrong with this statement:

If morality is not based purely on ones self interest, then if someone uses the word morality, right or wrong (in the moral sense) in a conversation withsomeone else, those words can really only have meaning if the communicater and the person being communicated with agree on a common moral code.

The point being that either you agree on a code (like the ten commandments) or you agree on selfishness. Absense that you can have no foundation for morality. You can't reason out morality. Like I said before - why is killing innocent wrong. Absense a selfish argument (ie - if we let innocent people get killed then I am next) you can not common up with a logical explanation of why killing is wrong. You must just agree that it is.

They don't have to agree on anything, they just have to understand each others' positions on the relevant aspect of morality.

ETA and I will give you a buy on not knowing this because you apparently don't follow the FB, but you can't take anything Sebby says seriously, especially if it's a broad statement of philosophy on something. He loves making broad statements and then totally contradicting himself -- sometimes even in the same post, though more frequently in a subsequent one. He's totally full of shit.*

*I am actually saying this in a somewhat affectionate way. Either cervical battering has improved my disposition, or marriage has changed him. I think the latter.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
They don't have to agree on anything, they just have to understand each others' positions on the relevant aspect of morality.

I don't agree with this. If you have different moral rules you can't reach an agreement on a political position you just have to agree to disagree, and if you are in power, you simply need to fight it out. For example if you think Polygamy is wrong and someone else thinks it is OK. Then you really can't aruge, you just have a moral difference. It gets really acute if your holy book says Polygamy is OK and mine says it is a sin. How can we argue whether it is right or wrong at that point. What is the point of discussing it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't agree with this. If you have different moral rules you can't reach an agreement on a political position you just have to agree to disagree, and if you are in power, you simply need to fight it out. For example if you think Polygamy is wrong and someone else thinks it is OK. Then you really can't aruge, you just have a moral difference. It gets really acute if your holy book says Polygamy is OK and mine says it is a sin. How can we argue whether it is right or wrong at that point. What is the point of discussing it.

You didn't specify that the people were having to reach an agreement on it. You said just that they were having a discussion. Christ. Of course if you need people to agree on a topic, and the people feel that opinions on the topic must be based on morality, then either you need at least one of them not to mind doing something "wrong" or you need them to agree that the thing is right or wrong. But with all those caveats, your (previously broad) statement that people need to agree is completely meaningless. There can be only one answer.

God you are an idiot. This wall is too hard for my head on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend. Can't we talk about ass-fucking or something?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It makes sense if you think reason can not be the basis of morality.

It may "make sense," but it doesn't in any way explain why reason cannot be the basis of morality, something you have said over and over but have not been able to explain (perhaps because you see moral reasoning as futile?).

What is wrong with this statement:

If morality is not based purely on ones self interest, then if someone uses the word morality, right or wrong (in the moral sense) in a conversation withsomeone else, those words can really only have meaning if the communicater and the person being communicated with agree on a common moral code.

The point being that either you agree on a code (like the ten commandments) or you agree on selfishness. Absense that you can have no foundation for morality. You can't reason out morality. Like I said before - why is killing innocent wrong. Absense a selfish argument (ie - if we let innocent people get killed then I am next) you can not come up with a logical explanation of why killing is wrong. You must just agree that it is.

The problem you have with language -- what do words mean, and how do we communicate? -- is one that has occupied many smart people for a long time. I have no simple answer, but it's not a problem that worries me. And in the context of our conversation, it has nothing to do with the alternative bases for morality, for one can ask the same question about religion -- how do we understand God's wishes?

So the leap you make from your first paragraph here to your second is a huge one. I disagree that you either "agree on a code" or "agree on selfishness." I'm not even sure what it means. Did you look at that link I posted on partially theorized agreements? In the law, people often agree on specific (moral) outcomes even when they can't agree on broader principles. The converse is often true as well.

And I can come up with logical explanations of why (most) killing is wrong. You just see discussing it as futile, or something.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It may "make sense," but it doesn't in any way explain why reason cannot be the basis of morality, something you have said over and over but have not been able to explain (perhaps because you see moral reasoning as futile?).



The problem you have with language -- what do words mean, and how do we communicate? -- is one that has occupied many smart people for a long time. I have no simple answer, but it's not a problem that worries me. And in the context of our conversation, it has nothing to do with the alternative bases for morality, for one can ask the same question about religion -- how do we understand God's wishes?

So the leap you make from your first paragraph here to your second is a huge one. I disagree that you either "agree on a code" or "agree on selfishness." I'm not even sure what it means. Did you look at that link I posted on partially theorized agreements? In the law, people often agree on specific (moral) outcomes even when they can't agree on broader principles. The converse is often true as well.

And I can come up with logical explanations of why (most) killing is wrong. You just see discussing it as futile, or something.

I have tried to explain why reason cannot be the basis of morality. It seems really obvious to me but you clearly think I am wrong. To me the word moral is like the word legal. The word legal makes absolutely no sense without a legal code. You can't reason why something is illegal or illegal. It either violates the law or it does not (you can argue over the rational for the existence of the law but not if the law exist).

I guess another way to look at it is without a code morality needs a goal. If the goal of morality is selfishness then you reason it out. You can say the goal of morality is social cohesiveness. But in the end that is just selfishness because social cohesiveness is really promoted by an individual because it is in their self interest.

What do you think the goal of morality is?

I don't think you have come up for reasons that killing is wrong (beyond selfishness).

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is the difference between a high church protestant and protestant?

High-church is more focused on the ceremonial aspects of worship; low-church generally adheres to a less strict (or no) order of service and a general informality of worship. Commonly used to describe differences in anglican practice (high church = capes & drapes & smells & bells (but no pope), Cranmer's book of common prayer; low church = Puritans, Presbyterians, evangelicals), but more generally applicable.

Or: high church practices came out of the reformation having split with the RC on certain limited matters of doctrine but not liturgy, and so remains much closer to pre Vat II catholic practice than other proddy sects. You get good music, transubstantiation and sometimes even latin, but no pope.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The problem you have with language -- what do words mean, and how do we communicate? -- is one that has occupied many smart people for a long time. I have no simple answer, but it's not a problem that worries me. And in the context of our conversation, it has nothing to do with the alternative bases for morality, for one can ask the same question about religion -- how do we understand God's wishes?

There is no problem with language here. I am just saying that communcating is impossible unless you agree on the common definition of the words you are using. That is just a given (is it not). We can not have a common definition of morality unless we use a code. Or agree that morality is based on selfishness. Otherwise we will have differing definitions. That is all I am saying.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
High-church is more focused on the ceremonial aspects of worship; (high church = capes & drapes & smells & bells (but no pope), Cranmer's book of common prayer;
high church practices came out of the reformation having split with the RC on certain limited matters of doctrine but not liturgy, and so remains much closer to pre Vat II catholic practice than other proddy sects. You get good music, transubstantiation and sometimes even latin, but no pope.

If you are an agnostic what is the point of all the costumes and ceremony. Why do the play?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you are an agnostic what is the point of all the costumes and ceremony. Why do the play?

Parties no longer include the minuet, and people rarely dress up enough. She misses the structure and the pomp.

To me, it's like being in a really expensive sedan. I feel safe.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you are an agnostic what is the point of all the costumes and ceremony. Why do the play?

Because I find all forms of human expression interesting. I do not find religious sentiment particularly interesting in its own right. Therefore I find religious practices with a greater emphasis on ceremony and the careful explication of doctrine to be more interesting and compelling than those that focus on the affective, emotional aspects of religious practice.

And, to the extent that I am agnostic not atheist, I think that any supreme being is knowable only indirectly, and cannot be fully understood or explained by the human mind (or: God must be unknowable to the rational mind). I find ritual a particularly effective and interesting tool for approaching the inherently unknowable, relying as it does on symbolism and mystery rather than direct analysis. I'm rather partial to the idea of the intercession of saints for the same reason. "Personal relationships with Jesus" do not seem, to me, similarly helpful or interesting. But that's purely a matter of personal taste.

eta - I can't believe I'm still doing this. I'm going home. Good weekend all.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Parties no longer include the minuet, and people rarely dress up enough. She misses the structure and the pomp.

To me, it's like being in a really expensive sedan. I feel safe.

I think it was Sebastian in Brideshead Revisted who said when asked why he was a Catholic "With its black and red costumes and decorated, churches - it is such a beautiful religion - don't you think?".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What do you think the goal of morality is?

The problem that we are having is that I can say something like, I'm a utilitarian and I think the goal of morality is to maximize the number of utils in the world, to the make the most people the happiest, because I think that making people happy is good.

And then you say, "why?" And I could give you more reasons why making people happy is good -- because people want to be happy, and the goal of our actions on earth should be to help people do what they want, and so on. (Only I might put it better if I bothered to read people who think seriously about this stuff and take the time to write it well -- this post is kinda like having me tell you how I might build an outboard engine.)

And then you say, again, "why?" Because it appears that no matter what the explanation is, you are not going to be happy until someone says, "because God says so."

At that point, you are wiling to accept that explanation without more. Someone else might start the game going again by saying, "so?" And then you would have to start in with the explanations.

The fact that you dismiss all other forms of moral reasoning, but accept "because God says so" without further explanation proves only that you are uninterested in moral reasoning. For centuries, many people have spent a lot of time and effort thinking about ethics and morality. You dismiss all of this work. I think that reflects more on you than on their work on ethics and morality.

I don't think you have come up for reasons that killing is wrong (beyond selfishness).

I think that I have, and that you are either not reading or not engaging with my posts. I think this in part because I never said anything about selfishness explaining why killing is wrong.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The problem that we are having is that I can say something like, I'm a utilitarian and I think the goal of morality is to maximize the number of utils in the world, to the make the most people the happiest, because I think that making people happy is good.

This never ending circle of asking why does not end because you have not defined morality. You don't really answer the question. If I ask you why do you build an outboard engine on your boat, you reply because I want to cross the lake faster. You answered the question. Asked and Answered. I can then ask you why you want to cross the lake, but that is a different question. But because you have not defined morality you can not answer the question about morality. You keep responding to the question, but you do not define morality, so therefore you do not really ANSWER THE QUESTION. If you say I am a utilitarian, and I think the goal of the world is to make most people the happiest. That explains what your utilitarian philosophy is but it does not explain WHY IT IS MORAL. If you believe there is no morality (or that the basis of morality is selfishness) then you can explain how your utilitarian philosophy benefits you. Otherwise you are just stuck with answering - that is what I believe. In other words - YOU CAN NOT RATIONALIZE MORALITY. Your answer cannot be a rational explanation.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And then you say, "why?" And I could give you more reasons why making people happy is good -- because people want to be happy, and the goal of our actions on earth should be to help people do what they want, and so on. (Only I might put it better if I bothered to read people who think seriously about this stuff and take the time to write it well -- this post is kinda like having me tell you how I might build an outboard engine.)

Again - all these responses do not answer the question. Until you answer teh question "why is it moral?" you have not answered the question. A RESPONSE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS AN ANSWER. The only answer a utilitarian can really give to why it is good send the most utils to the most people is simply - that is just what I believe.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And then you say, again, "why?" Because it appears that no matter what the explanation is, you are not going to be happy until someone says, "because God says so."

I am only happy if the response answers the question. Your two choices are either - because that is what I believe. Or that is what I believe the law laid down by the creator said. But no matter what your answer is, you are not giving a rational explanation of why something is moral. Because - LIKE I SAID BEFORE YOU CAN NOT.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop At that point, you are wiling to accept that explanation without more. Someone else might start the game going again by saying, "so?" And then you would have to start in with the explanations.[QUOTE]

Yes but there is a difference in answering the question and responding to the question. If you ask why is that or that not moral, and you say, because there is a list of what is moral and what is not moral - and I believe that list sets the parameters for (or defines) morality - that answers the question. That is just what I believe morality is. That answer answers the question but it is not a rational explanation. You keep coming up with rationalizations that do not answer the question. That is because there is no rational explanation because the term is not defined.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The fact that you dismiss all other forms of moral reasoning, but accept "because God says so" without further explanation proves only that you are uninterested in moral reasoning. For centuries, many people have spent a lot of time and effort thinking about ethics and morality. You dismiss all of this work. I think that reflects more on you than on their work on ethics and morality.

Again - I think that moral reasoning can not answer the question until you define morality. Just because I don't think the foundation from morality cannot be reason, does not mean that I am not interested in moral reasoning.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that I have, and that you are either not reading or not engaging with my posts. I think this in part because I never said anything about selfishness explaining why killing is wrong.

You think that I am reading your posts and not understanding them. I think you are reading mine and not understanding them. I think what you stated above just backs up what I said. You can not rationilize morality. Many other people that have put a lot of thought into this other than me agree with this. Many Atheists think that the word morality is meaningless.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This never ending circle of asking why does not end because you have not defined morality. You don't really answer the question. If I ask you why do you build an outboard engine on your boat, you reply because I want to cross the lake faster. You answered the question. Asked and Answered. I can then ask you why you want to cross the lake, but that is a different question. But because you have not defined morality you can not answer the question about morality. You keep responding to the question, but you do not define morality, so therefore you do not really ANSWER THE QUESTION. If you say I am a utilitarian, and I think the goal of the world is to make most people the happiest. That explains what your utilitarian philosophy is but it does not explain WHY IT IS MORAL.

Sure it does. Utilitarianism, in one form, posits that morality rests in maximizing everyone's well-being. And if you read John Stuart Mill, you will see that he explains this, or a variant of it.

You may not like his explanation, or find it convincing, but that's a different issue.

If you believe there is no morality (or that the basis of morality is selfishness) then you can explain how your utilitarian philosophy benefits you.

Where does this selfishness crap keep coming from? I do not understand why you are fixated on that word.

Otherwise you are just stuck with answering - that is what I believe. In other words - YOU CAN NOT RATIONALIZE MORALITY. Your answer cannot be a rational explanation.

Several millenia of philosophers beg to differ. I would find you blanket dismissal of all of them more convincing if it appeared that you had bothered to learn what they say before you reject it.

Again - all these responses do not answer the question. Until you answer teh question "why is it moral?" you have not answered the question. A RESPONSE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS AN ANSWER. The only answer a utilitarian can really give to why it is good send the most utils to the most people is simply - that is just what I believe.

That's not what I said above. I give you an off-the-cuff answer to why it's good to make people happy. I won't pretend it's good philosophy, but you should pretend that you are either answering or responding to what I've said.

I am only happy if the response answers the question. Your two choices are either - because that is what I believe. Or that is what I believe the law laid down by the creator said. But no matter what your answer is, you are not giving a rational explanation of why something is moral. Because - LIKE I SAID BEFORE YOU CAN NOT.

No and no. (1) Even if you say, "that is what I believe the law laid down by the creator said," you still have to answer why you believe that. So that's no answer. (2) People explain their beliefs. The explanations have or do not have moral and logical force. The process of examining and applying these beliefs and explanations leads people to change their views over time. So the process of moral reasoning is a whole lot more complicated than you will admit.

You are like a man who won't open his eyes and keeps saying the room is dark. If you find moral reasoning/philosophy/ethics ultimately unconvincing, and find comfort only in the explanation that God says so, that's your perogative, but don't pretend it reflects a failing of some sort on anyone else's part.

Again - I think that moral reasoning can not answer the question until you define morality. Just because I don't think the foundation from morality cannot be reason, does not mean that I am not interested in moral reasoning.

If you follow the link I gave you to the Wikipedia entry on "morality", you will see that many people over time have defined the term differently, leading to different schools of thought.

You think that I am reading your posts and not understanding them. I think you are reading mine and not understanding them. I think what you stated above just backs up what I said. You can not rationilize morality. Many other people that have put a lot of thought into this other than me agree with this. Many Atheists think that the word morality is meaningless.

It's not that you don't understand what I'm saying, it's that you are dismissing it out of hand, and then concluding that your dismissal means something.

Selfishness is not a basis for morality, IMHO. Morality is a way to think about the world and our role in it. You may be convinced by moral reasoning, or not. If your thinking leads you to certain truths, that's great. Others may not agree, for whatever reasons, but this need not undermine your belief in those truths. On some things (killing babies, e.g.), most people agree. On others (gay marriage, stem-cell research), not so. This does not stop us from continuing to think about our world and how we ought to act in it.