ACLU vs. USNA

[RockySLP]

Reason can be subjective, without a standard non-changing moral code. I am not saying religions don't change either, but hear me out. Without a standard, there is no absolute truth. My truth is not your truth sort of thing. Things do change quickly after that.

If reason stems from an antecedent moral standard (as you seem to suggest) -- and truth is interpreted from that normality -- things would be haywire. It might be better to say that reason interprets moral truth so as to derive such a standard. However, many standards (the most essential, one might argue) need not be in a state of conflict due to differences in reasoning. I think this relates to Wink's observation that societies share a great deal of moral understanding.

Furthermore, if one were to subjectively posit that there is no moral standard he would essentially be making a statement of moral truth, a logical paradox.

 

[TrickyFish]

I believe it was Feuerbach who basically said that we use God and religion as a mirror in which we reflect our own values. That is to say that those belonging to a certain religion don't practice a morality that is handed to them from God, but rather the religion and God(s) is (are) shaped around that which the society holds as virtuous. Thus, humanity is able to understand more of itself through such a religion, the same way that you never know what your voice sounds like until you hear it on a recording.

The idea is that as we learn from this we require religion less and less to accomplish these tasks. So yes, civilizations do need religion, as a learning tool. But eventually we'll grow out of it and learn to practice the morals and values that create a functioning and successful society without having to simply take them as law which lacks reason.

I do not think that religion is required for morality anymore. Reason is now perfectly sufficient. It makes no sense to talk about "who's reasoning." The truth exists independently of ourselves. A is A. The trouble comes in when people deceive themselves and others because that individual lacks honesty and integrity. In that case, religious morality is not likely to do any good either. I agree that two reasonable people can come to different conclusions through missteps of logic, but this will always occur, regardless of the "moral" premise. In these cases all one can do is accept the consequences of one's own missteps.

I just don't understand people who argue that a religion's moral basis (which has no doubt changed over the centuries) is somehow more infallible than one based on reason.

 

[Nafod]

I just don't understand people who argue that a religion's moral basis (which has no doubt changed over the centuries) is somehow more infallible than one based on reason.

..one would think they should coincide.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

words

A is not always A. Truth is a matter of one's perception. My truth may or may not be identical to that of someone else's. Arguing that a one truth exists is more a less an argument for God in the sense that most who believe in him believe he is the one truth. So basing morality on reason is not all that separate from basing it on religion. We base our morality on consequence. People in my opinion are more likely to break the "moral code" if they feel that there would be no consequence or if they feel the consequence is worth the risk.

Some might say well I wouldn't do that ever. So if you think that basing your morality on reason will keep it much the same then you fail to realize that reason is perception of any given person. To say that we reason the same is simply naive. Religion serves as a basis for law. Law is a strong factor in determining morality. One's knowledge of the law can often strengthen their morality depending on what law it is. I think religion serves its purpose in this world and I believe that the removal of it would in turn remove the hope for billions of people. What reason is there to live if we have nothing to hope for in the future?

 

[TrickyFish]

What reason is there to live if we have nothing to hope for in the future?

The present. I prefer to live my life based on action rather than hope.

"One must imagine Sisyphus happy." -Camus

..one would think they should coincide.

One would think they should, but I personally don't think they do. Honestly, I'd rather not open that can of worms in a place like this.

 

[raptor10]

Guys and gals, philosophers have been working on a system of morality that is intelligible, internally coherent and consistent for at least 3,000, and so far all have failed...

Think about it this way, If you are an American Christian and you follow the Old Testament religiously (pun intended!), or you were a Muslim following a Saudi brand of Sharia Law (Sharia law changes depending on culture) you'd be a criminal... If you used reason to arrive at a Consequentialist view or a Utilitarian view, or Teleological or Deontological Ethics you'd also be a criminal.

There exists today no universal moral system because of the interplay between Philosophical ideas (religious and secular) over the course of ALL human history, the moral systems that developed are tools that help us adapt to the world around us, and when the tools don't fit the job we discard them.

The claim that without religion we would carry on our merry little lives in a similar "moral" system is completely false, something new would quickly and rapidly take it's place, something which may or may not be moral from our point of view.

 

[IKE]

A is A.

+infinity (Even thought infinities don't actually exist.)

A is not always A.

Of course, that depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
If you're going to think like this, why bother exerting the effort to type?

When you fly your first solo, point the aircraft downward, and do nothing else... Then, come back and let us know if the ground is not always the ground. Just please don't submit anyone else's saftey to this "A is not always A" mentality. The aircraft you want to fly are capable of doing so because existence exists, A is A, and numerous engineers and pilots in the past have acknowledged these facts (at least implicitly).

Guys and gals, philosophers have been working on a system of morality that is intelligible, internally coherent and consistent for at least 3,000 [years], and so far all have failed...

I disagree. Objectivism is a philosophy based on self-evident axioms and logic. It's relatively unknown outside of philosophy classes, and some people take issue with some of its premises, but I have yet to find an inconsistency in its system. I'm still studying it, so I'm not trying to sell it to anyone, but I think it negates your statement.

 

[raptor10]

+infinity (Even thought infinities don't actually exist.)

Explain singularities than Einsteen!

Of course, that depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2:icon_rage

Actually in epistemology, whether or not A always equals A is open for debate 'A' can have multiple states depending on location, culture, language etc... take the case of someone asking if you want "tea." In America that A=A, in Australia that A=B (dinner or meal) language is a horrible horrible tool for communicating thoughts, but it's the best tool we have.

 

[IKE]

Explain singularities then Einstein!

Isn't it called a singularity because the infinity causes the equations to breakdown and provide a solution that does not make sense in reality?

Actually in epistemology, whether or not A always equals A is open for debate 'A' can have multiple states depending on location, culture, language etc... take the case of someone asking if you want "tea." In America that A=A, in Australia that A=B (dinner or meal) language is a horrible horrible tool for communicating thoughts, but it's the best tool we have.

You are context-dropping. "Tea" is a complex concept, and as such is dependent upon a number of other concepts/percepts. If two rational people share the definition for all of the concepts which are antecedent to understanding "tea", they will agree on the definition of "tea."

In addition to not believing in God I am to assume you belive He never exsisted. So can we agree that He may currently exist, even though you believe he didn't exist in the past, or that he may exsist (make his presence known) in the future?

No. An infinite, omniscient, or omnipotent god is logically impossible. If there were some evidence that we were created, or some "greater being" wants us to worship him, then it would become possible. Currently, there is zero evidence leading me to believe that any sort of god exists, so there is no reason for me to even consider it.

 

[Afterburner76]

Break: I think this is quite possibly the most intriguing thread AW has ever had. I have been logging in every ten minutes hoping for the next answer! It would be a shame to lock such a mentally and philosophically exciting discusion!

Not only that, but we have managed to keep this as a perfectly well thought out, sound, and reasonable discussion. Great work everyone!

 

[raptor10]

Isn't it called a singularity because the infinity causes the equations to breakdown and provide a solution that does not make sense in reality?

No it is called a singularity because the equations we have don't adequately explain the reality.

You are context-dropping. "Tea" is a complex concept, and as such is dependent upon a number of other concepts/percepts. If two rational people share the definition for all of the concepts which are antecedent to understanding "tea", they will agree on the definition of "tea."

A fundamental problem of communication (which clear thinking classes try to elucidate) is that noöne can ever understand exactly what another individual means. Every sentence uttered has three distinct meanings (which may have similarities but are never the 'same)

1. Speaker meaning - when I say any word or sentence by virtue of inherent thought processes I have complex concepts which that word refers to and I can also have multiple definitions of that word or sentence - thus when I say "tea" I as a rational human being can store both definitions of tea as 1. a drink or 2. an Australian term for dinner. So how does your mind tease out what I mean when I speak? By looking at
2. Sentence meaning - We look at the structure of sentences and words, the problem here is that sentences (or words) communicated may not necessarily be in agreement with the speakers thoughts, imagine you are a college stud again and you have a Tuesday-Thursday class, at the end of class Tuesday the professor says "Have a good day, I'll see you guys tomorrow..." We see the dichotomy between the sentence meaning (I will see you Wednesday as today is Tuesday) and the speaker meaning (I will see you on the next class day, Thursday) and although we are both rational individuals our -
3. Receiver meaning - of this sentence is dependent upon the premises we use to derive a conclusion, If my premise is that the teacher is speaking literally, I will have to come in tomorrow on Wednesday as I will have class, If my premise is that the teacher made a grammatical error I will come back on Thursday...

Now how does this come into the fact the physical objects have an
A=NotA property, well their is much debate on whether the world is only composed of mind states, only composed of physical states or whether it is some combination and if their is some combination how do they interact... all three theories allow for A to not equal A in certain circumstances.

My point being that if you want to discount "tea" as a complex concept than you discount all language because it is equally complex at whatever level you choose to examine it

No. An infinite, omniscient, or omnipotent god is logically impossible. If there were some evidence that we were created, or some "greater being" wants us to worship him, then it would become possible. Currently, there is zero evidence leading me to believe that any sort of god exists, so there is no reason for me to even consider it.

You want to really blow your mind as to whether or not we are "created" check out the simulation hypothesis:

1. Almost no civilization will reach a technological level capable of producing simulated realities.
2. Almost no civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will produce a simulated reality, for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Almost all entities with our general set of experiences are living in a simulation.

You will have to look at the math to understand it properly but a general rundown is this that if even one theoretical society ever decides to make a high fidelity simulation of their history, than more simulated people will exist compared to non-simulated people and the odds of you being simulated are greater than not...

Basically to prove this probability theory wrong you have to argue that one of the first two premises are true... If they are both false by necessity we are (have a high, high, high, probability of being but not necessarily so) created!

 

[Afterburner76]

^^^^^^^^^

 

[IKE]

No it is called a singularity because the equations we have don't adequately explain the reality.

Exactly, because the reality is not, and cannot be infinite. Infinities are a sign that the theory is not yet complete.

Now how does this come into the fact the physical objects have an A=NotA property, words...

"Tea" is a word used to refer to multiple concepts. One such concept is a drink, another is a meal, another is marijuana (I just learned this from dictionary.com). A thing is itself, it cannot be other than itself. Don't confuse two concepts being referred to by the same sound/word as being the same concept with two different definitions.

You want to really blow your mind ...

That paper looks like junk math, based on junk logic and poor premises, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and read it later, when I'm willing to waste a few hours dissecting the writer's language and assumptions.

Edit: I've read the paper. All you have to do to invalidate this argument is skip to Part IV. Core of the Simulation Argument. The author builds an equation relating 3 variables representing the 3 postulates you mentioned. He then assumes that such a large number of simulations just must be run in the "posthuman" future (a little question begging, methinks), that the number should be treated as infinite, which makes at least one of the three postulates "true". Unfortunately for him, even a probability really really close to 1 does not prove an immutable truth. There is a world of difference between ~ 0 and = 0.

 

[eddie]

"Tea" is a word used to refer to multiple concepts. One such concept is a drink, another is a meal, another is marijuana (I just learned this from dictionary.com). A thing is itself, it cannot be other than itself. Don't confuse two concepts being referred to by the same sound/word as being the same concept with two different definitions.

Right. A is A regardless of your or my ability to interpret, communicate or percieve it.

Tangentially,

I would argue that there IS absolute right and wrong. Moral codes and ethical examination do their best to approximate it. However, even if we DID have the perfect set of morals, since they are carried out by human beings, who are NOT omnitient, they are subject to inadequacy.

 

[raptor10]

I disagree. Objectivism is a philosophy based on self-evident axioms and logic. It's relatively unknown outside of philosophy classes, and some people take issue with some of its premises, but I have yet to find an inconsistency in its system. I'm still studying it, so I'm not trying to sell it to anyone, but I think it negates your statement.

This is an incorrect definition of objectivsm; objectivism or 'moderate moral realism' implies that for all moral statements a truth value is assignable to them (as in it is true that killing babies is morrally wrong). Abrahamic religions as well as hinduism and some secular systems can be branded as objectivist philosophies...