Secular basis for morality?

Post Reply New Topic

Since we've dropped the rest, let me stop you here. I don't intend to go read someone else's words about what you find is a "naturalist fallacy." I'm not interested in what others think it is or how it applies to what I've written. I want to know what YOU think it is and how it applies to my words here. So if you are willing to take a moment and use words of your own (not someone else's) that you can defend well, I'd appreciate a detailed explanation.

I don't mean to be abrupt, but I'll be blunt to save wasted effort. If you refer me to a web site in the process, that stops the discussion. If you use someone else's words, that stops the discussion. I'm interested in _your_ position, one you can defend as your own. And, if that's possible, I am interested in what you see and may say here. Actually, I think I'd enjoy it. (My calling it "religious claptrap" was about my past experiences with the phrase and I think I said as much, earlier, to be clear so that you wouldn't misunderstand and take it personally. It's not about you, just my baggage I bring to the discussion. If you feel you can defend the position from a non-religious claptrap point of view, I'm interested.)

Jon

P.S. At least I did answer the OP, as well, with a suggested line to think upon. That done, I hope others won't mind if we continue here though I'm fine putting this into another thread, too.

You have used someone's else's words as well:



So what's the point?

I just used links,so I can show that I'm not inventing things.


As you already said:




Seems to me that you only want to hear those that agree with you.
I have already stated my opinion on the matter,you disagree and that's fine with me.


You firstly attacked my argument,by fallacious formulation of this same argument,and then accused me for logical fallacy.
I have stated that your arguments are based on logical fallacy of confusing biological with ethical,and I presented link that explain this fallacy further.
You called this exposing of logical fallacy 'superstitious'.

I personally think,that you can call any argument against your opinion 'religious clap-trap'.




So,there is no point of conversation between us,since I already stated my opinions.

Last edited by Witt on 06 Jan 2008, 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

I do, but I try to be sparing about it. If you look back and check between us, count words, I think you will see what I'm talking about. I've suggested books as sources one might go to for more information, for example. But not to replace my content. I've written almost all of what is here in my own words. and I can discuss some of the details, too.

You just made me think about a phrase, "first remove the log from thine own eye."

Jon

Actually, the words you quote are my own, not someone else's. The reference I provided is a source you can go to for some interesting discussions about self-organized criticality and nature -- none of it is about morals, though. Not discussed there, at all.

So my point remains.

Jon

Actually, there may be a remaining item, if you agree. As I mentioned earlier, I would be interested in YOUR views on your point where you wrote, "This is again, I believe 'naturalistic fallacy'." I assert to you that the term, 'naturalistic', is one usually reserved (always, in my experience, but I will allow room for exceptions I am unaware of) for use by those with a superstitious world view. You seemed to react to that, in my interpretation of your words trying to suggest that your accusation is objective in some way and isn't simply superstitious in nature. If you really do feel you can present this fallacy well, in your own words and not in a way that asks me to argue with people who are not here, then I would honestly like to find out more from you. I try to learn and avoid making logical mistakes. In the past, this kind of accusation has _in_every_case_ turned out to be nothing but superstitious positioning. But I grant that it may not be the case, here. However, I will NOT go around arguing with web pages. If you cannot present your logic well here, where I can examine it and discuss the details, then there is no point bothering. Which is why I said as much.

But I really am interested in hearing your thinking on this, if you feel you honestly have a legitimate point in saying so. But not if I have to argue with folks who are not here and cannot defend themselves in a two-way discussion. I might just as well tilt at windmills.

Jon

So,I'm not allowed to quote another source?
I have quoted just two sites.


I'm saying that your arguments are based on fallacy,and presented mine,plus arguments from another sources.
But now you are upset,because I'm quoting independent sources,since it doesn't fit to your beliefs.



What this have to do with their correctness?
You haven't invented memes,or meme theory.
You present this meme theory almost as your own personal creation.

If my 'someone else's' quotes show that your arguments are logically flawed,then I don't see if they are written solely by you changes the fact that they are flawed.

As a matter of fact,most of your arguments are self-contradictory:





You used this reference to prove your point,and then you say that this reference have actually nothing to do with that point.

Of course, you are. I'm just not interested in trying to engage a discussion with your sources. Just you. When you want to participate and defend your own statement that I quoted with your own words, let me know. It was you writing, wasn't it?

Jon

This argument is like:
"Superstitious people often use claim of "naturalistic fallacy",therefore claim of this fallacy is also superstitious."

If you are making logical error,then this is error,regardless who is exposing this error.


Even your arguments against my claim of 'naturalist fallacy' are logically flawed.

Since laws of logic contradicts your belief,therefore there must be something wrong with laws of logic.



I have presented independent (objective) explanation of this fallacy,yet you want my words for it.
Since you have accused me before for not being 'objective'.



You want 'objective' my OWN opinion?
What is your problem?
You turned is into irrelevant nonsense,I must say.

I have presented independent explanation of this logical fallacy,so that it can be 'objective' opinion,not my own.
Its simply exposes what exactly is fallacious.



This is fallacy known as 'Argument from personal belief'.
You present your own opinion as fact,and you ridicule critics as 'superstitious',thus avoiding possibility of being criticized.



I have presented my logic quite well,unlike you that wrongly formulated my arguments(and yours).
You want me to be objective,yet you want my own opinion.

If I present independent opinions,then you are not going to argue,yet when I present my opinion,then that's not objective.

P.S






What exactly do you want?

You are not suppose to debate with my sources,I used this sources to confirm what I have said,by asserting to independent source,so that I'm not going to be accused for inventing things,and to be 'objective',since this is what you demanded from me.

You used also another sources as well.
And I hardly doubt that you invented meme theory.

If you claim that what you presented here are your own thoughts then you are a bad liar,and I'm hoping that's not true,but what you said is nothing new or original.
As my link showed this was already presented by Dawkins & co long time ago.


P.S

If you are so eager to hear about my OWN thoughts about 'Naturalistic fallacy' here it is:

If A=material entity (gene)
B=immaterial concept (morals)

Then you cannot say A=B,since this is contradiction.
There can be only A=A,or B=B

Same can go if you say A=biological laws,and B=moral laws

You cannot equate natural object with human concept,since you are confusing two different ontological levels (objective and subjective).
Nor you cannot apply biological laws to moral laws,since these are two different things.

Last edited by Witt on 06 Jan 2008, 4:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

I actually am interested in hearing from you about the accusation you made. The main reason, for me personally, is that you seemed to suggest something other than a religious/superstitious basis for your use of the phase. Since I've never actually encountered such a thing, I would be interested to add a new understanding. I'm now imagining that it is just the same old use I've encountered before, though. If so, I admit I'm not interested in hearing about it, again. But if your meaning is otherwise, I'm honestly interested in learning from you about that. I mean that sincerely. But if you don't explain, I suppose I'll take the default assumption here and lump it into every other such use I've encountered in life.

Jon

Ok,lets repeat this again :


If you are so eager to hear about MY OWN thoughts about 'Naturalistic fallacy' here it is:

If A=material entity (gene)
B=immaterial concept (morals)

Then you cannot say A=B,since this is contradiction.
There can be only A=A,or B=B

Same can go if you say A=biological laws,and B=moral laws

You cannot equate natural object with human concept (because human concept is not natural object),since you are confusing two different ontological levels (objective and subjective).
Nor you cannot apply biological laws to moral laws,since these are two different things,in the same manner described above.



Both red and blue are colors,but because they are both colors this doesn't mean that red=blue.

In same manner both genes and morals are part of humans,but because they are both part of humans doesn't mean that genes=morals.

P.S

I'm not sure what exactly do you want?

Link that I presented about "naturalist fallacy",clearly stated that this fallacy was exposed by George Edward Moore,one of fathers of analytical philosophy (together with Russel).
I supposed that his arguments would be better of mine,since he was the person that formulated the argument in first place.

But you want MY formulation of it,because you call this 'superstitious'.
Moore's definition of it is not good enough for you.


It's like I'm calling 'Principia Mathematica' superstitious,and want your own explanation of it,since I don't want to accept explanations of Bertrand Russel.

If you continue to make such nonsense demands,I'm afraid that I must end my discussion.

Okay. Thanks for the attempt. So... what is the 'naturalistic fallacy' about what I wrote?

I did take a look at the wiki page on the phrase and read through it. I was actually kind of intrigued by Moore's atom/molecule take on building ideas (irreducibly simple ideas from which complexes of other ideas can be fabricated) and his concern about definitional fallacies of this particular kind. It makes sense to me that one cannot take an assumption and turn it into a theory from which other things might be deduced (put in my words, not his -- something I have been asking you to do, as well.) And I'd probably consider that a fallacy, were I to have applied it in what I wrote. But of course, I didn't do that.

Actually, now I think your accusation comes from your own misunderstanding of Moore's invented phrase.

Jon

Okies, this is getting quite frustrating...

Natural Fallacy is the assertion that you can not gain "useful" knowledge using inductive reasoning from reality. The important thing to remember is that it is ASSERTED as being a formal fallacy. It is NOT, however, one.

And Jonk, that atom/molecule business is a lot of hooey... the word you are looking for is AXIOM.

You guys can continue debating now...

I have wrote about 'naturalistic fallacy'!Or perhaps you imply your own definition of it.

It so,then in future you can debate with yourself.



Well,this is just one part of his explanation.And its about term 'good'.



If you continued to read Moore you would see that he stated,that we cannot confuse natural object with something that is not object.This is relevant to memes.
If you define moral act as creation of natural selection process,you commit just that.

You have read just one part of Moore's explanation,and ignored the rest.






This is why you demanded 'my definition',not Moore's,and therefore you demanded no quotes from Moore.If I try define this definition,it would be always weaker then Moore's,and you could always accuse me of 'not understand him'.

Therefore,you have created solution in which you are always right.

When i presented Moore's opinion,you demanded mine.
When I presented mine,you reverted to Moore's.

It either 'superstitious','invented' or 'misunderstood',if it not suits you.

If you are making fallacy,then its accusation of fallacy(supported by sources) that is fallacious.
Like your deliberate misquoting of me,or this fallacy.

As you stated before:



You simply WANT your opinion to be true.So let it be.


P.S




Yes,it is.

But,not anymore,since I'm quitting discussion with Jon.We have spammed this thread already,with off-topic themes.
He can discuss with himself,or the people that agree with him(since this is what he obviously want):

OK, I will first say I have only skimmed some of the posts here, so I apologize if this point has been made, but here is my take on the original question:

Atheists and agnostics can of course be moral people.  But I would argue that the reason they are moral is not because morality can exist independent of God, but simply because they still base their beliefs on a morality given them by God--without knowing or acknowledging the source. If you stick money in my pocket and I find it and assume it is mine, I can spend that money the same way I would if it WAS mine. But that does not change the fact that I would not have it if you had not stuck it there.

Let's say you just moved to the US and do not know that drugs are illegal. But you have seen what they do to people, and thus decide that it is not wise to do drugs. Then you find out they are illegal; you now realize your behaviour has conformed to the law--not becuase you had any belief there was such a law, but you followed the same wisdom/intuition/experience in making the decision not to do drugs, that the government used when making them illegal (the reason being that they are harmful)

(the purpose of this analogy has nothing to do with the actual morality of drugs, just an illustration)

Just like a government law is the rule whether you know it or not, God's law is the law whether you know it or not, and the effects of not following it are there like it or not.  If you do not believe in God but follow the law he has given, you are, like the guy who abstained from drugs, following the same reasoning God gives for making something a law (he actually does have REASONS, he didn't just decide arbitrarily on things, its for our good).  But once you learn there is an actual law giver, you will have a much easier time understanding the law; you'll know where to look. You'll know what is moral and what is not, for a real reason besides your own feelings, which could be right, could be wrong.


If you don't believe in the law giver, you may be lucky and hit on the morals for the same reason God has for making these values law, but you won't know. You could be wrong, could be right. As a theist, I do not have to think about God to feel the need to do good things. It is often from a natural feeling of empathy or pity.  But when I think back on those actions I have done, I realize that they were moral because they conform to God's law---but those feelings are there for me because of God whether I believe in him or not.The same goes for an atheist when he becomes a theist. He may have led a life worthy of the greatest theists, but his atheism was not a basis for that---and if he truly followed his atheism he could have just as easily justified terrible acts if they gave him pleasure. When he comes to a belief in God he will not say, well guess I'll start being nice. He will say, wow, the only reason my niceness of the past was right or wrong was because God has been there as the lawmaker the whole time.


Now here is the danger with morality without a theistic base: if you do not believe in God, or absolutes, you must find that morality from within yourself. Aren't you in huge danger or accepting thing that are convenient for you and not others? Since the morality flows from your own feelings, it will come from your desires. Your desires may be at odds with the well being of another person. You are always at risk of simply taking selfishness, or maybe sort of good things mixed with selfishness, and calling them moral.  If there is no absolute morality, there is no morality whatsoever. Any question of morality no longer becomes a question of personal morals, it ceases to be a question of morality whatsoever. If there is no right or wrong answer, how can you call a persons actions right or wrong even based on their own morality?

If you say, "well as long as you follow your own standard, and don't interfere with mine, your being moral" here is the problem----you just made a moral judgement that applies to others as well as yourself, and thus admit a certain absolute. If you say this is not an absolute, you are admitting there are cases when it is ok to judge others morality---and thus your argument is defeated either way.


If you do not believe in God, have the intellectual honesty to say, rather than that people should follow their own morality (and ah yes, that word "should", implies an objective value), admit that there is no such thing as a morally right or wrong action at all, only pleasant actions, or ones I find agreeable.

If some things that I find pleasurable (eating ice cream or feeding the homeless) are moral, then all things that I find pleasurable are (stealing ice cream or feeding the homeless to my dog).

If you say that the first pleasurable things are right and the second set wrong, you are admitting a sense of morals outside or your own choices. If you say, that's just because I should take care of my own and not interfere with others, you are setting a standard that is outside yourself: that it is morally wrong for anyone to make a judgement on someone elses morality--you just made a moral judgment.

And you cannot get an "ought" from an "is". Perhaps for your own sake. But if there is no objective morality outside the self, you cannot tell me I "ought" to let you make your own morality. Actually you can do whatever you want and tell me whatever you want and there is no right or wrong attached to it, if its true. You can kill me and persecute me for criticising your arguments. And you are right, you have followed your own values and thus have commited no wrong doing.

The problem of course is that once you base your "oughts" from what "is", you have ceased to be logical, and so cannot engage in an argument over what ought to be. Follow it to its logical conclusion and the only reason to do something is the animalistic desire for power or pleasure. Sure, you may try to use logic and argument to gain this end. But you have ceased to actually be rational. The only reason for convincing people of such things is to deceive them into thinking such arguments are rational.

And of course that doesn't mean it is intentional deception, for most that argue such things only do so because they have decieved themselves, or been decieved by those others who have deceived themselves already---or merely use any justfication they can to allow them to get ahead.