There is no god. We make our own purpose.
— Banno

Which is what? To help your fellow man and woman, love and educate your kids, be a force of happiness to all? Why? Seems meaningless to simply make someone's stay as comfortable as possible if you admit there was no reason for them to come and stay in the first place. — Hanover

Forever the same on thephilosophyforum. — Wayfarer

Indeed.

I think this is a good summary of the ongoing debate here. And for all our rehashing of this theme I'm not sure we've really explored it in depth. Maybe I haven't been here long enough or paid close enough attention.

Freeloaders take advantage of the cooperative nature of others for personal gain. That doesn't seem selfish to you? — praxis

I'm not sure what this is about, but isn't a type of freeloading built into the human experience in as much as we benefit from the work/ideas/civilization of all who came before us, without making a single contribution?

I am human and I am a humanist, by which I mean we created human value and meaning. That's a good thing. I love humanity. I feel a connection with my fellow humans. But meaning doesn't mean anything outside of a human context. As I see it, the only way there could be meaning beyond a human scale would be if there is a God. I am not a theist. — T Clark

:up:

Jokes aside, what is it that makes things hilarious?

The philosophical joke I'm familiar with is the reductio ad absurdum (reduce to an absurdity). How much of a thigh-slapper it is depends on whether you contradicted yourself or your opponent did (schadenfreude).

Then there's satire which I feel is the highest form of humor! There's critical, life-changing, messages in them, plus you get to :rofl: — Agent Smith

Satire is highbrow populism.

Humor, like sex, is idiosyncratic and people are turned on or repelled by different things. I generally dislike and avoid anything that is created to generate laughter - stand up comedy especially, but also comedy movies or TV. There are enough funny things in the world already - people, events, animals, conversations, situations, philosophy fora... I greatly prefer unintentional humor to contrived mirth.

what is it that makes things hilarious? — Agent Smith

Given people find different thing hilarious, there may not be an 'it' as such - perhaps being generous towards a joke or a comedian or being susceptible to comedy is more akin to mysticism.... :gasp:

I notice too how humor has a status unlike most behavior in humans. To describe someone as having 'no sense of humor', is in most cases an immense put down.

The problem with the word god is that it is used with cavalier imprecision and, as a concept, often becomes blurry as believers realize how problematic and inadequate the idea of god is. I've lost count of the amount of people who have told me god is 'energy' or 'love' or 'nature' or 'meaning' or 'transcendence'.... there are endless creative and pointless definitions that really get us nowhere. Best to leave the term 'god' to personalism and to scriptural accounts, and use more precise terminology to describe other categories of meaning.

Yep, I remember how I tried to modernize Plato's Allegory of the Cave and simply couldn't find anything in today's world that could replace "shadows" and "cave". — Agent Smith

I think the update is simulation theory.

Too far afield here and really a massive strawman. — Hanover

Ha! :wink: Not a strawman if you were arguing for divine command theory which is why I wrote this. Since you aren't, I can now say it doesn't apply to your argument and your rebuttal is fair enough (although what I said will apply to others here who often say there is no morality without a theistic basis).

I'm arguing moral realism, asserting an actual right and wrong beyond the opinion of humans. — Hanover

That's great. Keep arguing. I am happy to be convinced of moral realism. Where does morality live if not in the minds and choices of humans?

We're not just flittering randomly over time regarding what is good and evil, but are getting closer to the truth. — Hanover

Does this not sound suspiciously like a liberal talking social justice and identity politics? I'm fascinated that you are able to identify truth and say that we are moving closer to it. Great if 'true'. Could this not merely be a case that our preferred form of social order is currently privileging rights and pluralism, albeit only by the mutual agreement of a shared subjectivism held by those whose views we support?

Sure, we can be absolutely opposed to rape and treat it as if no person can question its immorality ever, but why we suspend our reason and afford it absolute evil status when we know it's really just a subjective preference just means we've arrived at an interesting coping mechanism in order to navigate this godless world. — Hanover

What makes you think god/s are against rape (have you read the Old Testament/Tanakh)? What makes you think a god's moral positions are useful, if they can even be identified?

Theistic morality does not escape any of the questions secular morality faces. Theistic moral systems have no foundation for their beliefs.

:up:

"Free pass" just according to you, or are you invoking the idea of higher authority? If it is just you; I have to say the idea of an individual disapproving of nature seems somehow absurd. — Janus

As a criterion of value, be it personal or social. I'm not the only person who has pointed to the horror that is nature and felt a repugnance for some of it. Darwin's faith was tested severely when he learned about the hatching behavior of a wasp.

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars…”

Charles Darwin

:up:

You've just presented an objective basis for determining morality. You're not arguing relatavism any more. — Hanover

Yes, I made that point earlier - that this is as close to 'objective' as we can get in my view.

If "flourishing" is the objective goal, you've got to offer some reason why. If it is just because it is, that is equivalent to "god says so." — Hanover

Why flourishing? I've already said that this is a presupposition. No one has to accept it. There are those who think that people don't deserve to flourish and thrive. That a failed state is perfectly fine, that misery and suffering and warfare are satisfactory conditions for life.

So you accept a law from a higher power? — frank

Digression - Even if we were to accept a law from a higher power as theoretically possible, how would we demonstrate what that law is and what that higher power is? Is this view of any use? Cannot any position be justified as the will (or law) of some higher power?

Are you taking the position then that morality is determined by time and place and that slavery was good when it was accepted? — Hanover

Who are you, Matt Dillahunty?

See answer above.

So then a guy comes along celebrating the joys of rape, and you can't tell him rape is wrong — Hanover

Yep, this is a frequently made argument (as you know) and there are probably just two responses.

1) Yes, you're right. There is nothing objective. Sorry about that. It is simply an individual/culture holding subjectively derived values. But humans, in the interest of cooperation and peace, tend not to commit crimes against each other. We are a eusocial species. We build social harmony. And we have prisons for those who don't care. (heavily simplified answer)

2) We can set the goal of the flourishing of conscious creatures as the overarching ethical principle for human behavior. Now we can evaluate our actions on the basis of how this goal can be best supported. No doubt with endless debate.

In both instances we have reasons to condemn the rapist. And with more powerful arguments than 'god says so.'

Can you demonstrate an objective morality?

We all have intellects, but by no means all of us have a capacity for atrocities; at least not self-motivated atrocities.

Do chimps murder others of their own troop?

Eating others is necessary; it is part and parcel of the natural order; so I don't see it as disordered; it is, I think, by mere definition, not disordered.

I am not very familiar with the idea and tenets of virtue ethics, so I am probably the wrong person to ask about that question. I will say that I think all our principles and beliefs are pretty much examples of cultural values being interpreted by individuals. — Janus

I think almost everyone has the capacity for atrocity. It simply takes the 'right' situation or triggers - war; holocausts; dictatorships, extremes of poverty, prison...

Yes, chimps beat, kill and sometimes cannibalize from their own tribe.

Eating other living things may be 'necessary' (although people overlay ethical veganism) but I think a 'creation' wherein animals torture prey and eat it still living appears disordered and perverse to me. The fact something is natural doesn't give it a free pass...

I think you are right about cultural values.

Other options? Perhaps, since we don't see other social animals murdering their fellows, there is also, at least in regard to murder, an instinctive anti-disposition. Should we think of anyone capable of murder as being somehow radically disordered? — Janus

I wonder if our capacity for atrocities is simply the shadow side of our intellect.

It's understood chimps murder. They also patrol their boundaries and tear apart intruders. Dianne Fossey documented this and it shocked her.

Nature itself seem radically disordered - a suburban backyard is a bloodbath - insects and animals eat each other alive. Even the idea that food means eating another living thing seems perverse.

In relation to virtue ethics, I was pondering if this might be a third option as a source of ethical behavior or is it just an example of cultural values being interpreted by an individual?

I think that's a fair summary. I certainly struggle with the idea of people claiming to have some kind of innate knowledge of the numinous. And it seems to me there isn't a position going you couldn't justify using such a claim. So as a way of uncovering truth or reliable knowledge, I consider it fairly dire. But I am not saying it is false... :wink:

Nice work.

Indeed. Ethics are either a code of conduct set by a culture, based on values, traditions and evolving attitudes, or they are handed down by a transcendent source - (deity or idealism).

What are the other options? Does virtue ethics operate in the context of cultural values interacting with those of the individual?

I think you missed it.

Seriously, can you answer that?

And is it even possible to answer that without sounding like yet another patronizing bourgeois? — baker

Of course. Not everyone is a bitter cynic :wink: The question was to Joshs, who provided an answer which was not a patronizing bourgeois response. People are committed to growing and learning, Baker - even people from poor working class backgrounds like me. Or do you advocate a culture of low expectations for people from disadvantaged origins?

Murder doesn't fuck up order unless people can't be convinced it's necessary.

Societies of all sorts clicked along with slavery, with its dissolution fucking up everything. — Hanover

Sure, the social order is set by what the culture determines as valuable. If a rights based view, or a religious morality predominates, the order is likely to reflect those values. And those values may shift as the culture changes.

So time limits for goals, as part of the very goals themselves can be set by the individual who wants to achieve said goals, at least I often set time limits for myself in which to achieve certain goals, anybody else? — HardWorker

I don't set goals.

I suspect whatever reservation you have in condemning rape in other nations exists only in your inability to articulate a reason why your cultural values should predominate, but your conscience leaves you no doubt as to the immorality of it. — Hanover

I'm happy to condemn it. I didn't give you a full answer.

I generally take an imperfect secular humanist view that actions which cause harm to human flourishing are bad. We can even set up 'objective' criteria relative to this basic goal. But I guess you must agree on this presupposition of 'flourishing' to begin with. You refer to conscience. Yep, most people are socialized to hold certain values and these are often shared across cultures and are strongly felt.

Even if one presumed that some given creed is the indubitable word of god, and that it sets out what we God proposes we ought do, it remains open to us to reject that proposal. — Banno

Yes, what evidence do we have that god is a moral being - other than in the fan fiction (scripture), which by most accounts seems to suggest the opposite is the case.

And if we separate our notion of god from any old books, how do we determine what god wants us to do anyway? It's all very well to argue that god provides a foundation for morality in theory, but what is that morality if god/s are not present to share their views? We are still left to our own counsel on these matters, to guess or intuit god's values.

In any event, is this not a nod to subjectivism? If the world goes mad and finds virtue in rape, is not rape virtuous? — Hanover

Are not some cultures insane by the standards of others? Can we demonstrate that we have access to virtues that transcend human perspectives?

especially the Ukrainian situation... — Jack Cummins

Yes, especially the role of Christian nationalism in Putin's actions. There are media stories now about how some Trump supporters are pro-Putin because he is understood to be working to spread Christian values across Europe... If this continues to go sky high, expect best selling books about the cultural values of the Eastern Orthodox church.

Gene Gendlin’s Focusing offers a pretty cool way to learn to tap into the generating process. — Joshs

Thanks, I will mull over this. I am slightly familiar with his work and with Focusing.

Probably best to understand me as a skeptical moderate...or a practical skeptic. I believe there's some kind of 'real world' out there in some never quite finally specifiable way. What is a body really and finally? — jas0n

Indeed. I tend towards anti-foundational skepticism to use a rather grand term for my mostly quotidian outlook. I often find what Joshs writes absolutely fascinating but I don't really have a way to make use of such notions in life. Perhaps it seems overly academic to me.

Like a lot of people here, I generally hold that people come from a perspective that makes sense to them. The important question is how committed are they to reflecting on their presuppositions and how can this best be done?

As guide, he doesn’t want to dissuade you from these claims , only to invite you to see if you can experience a mobile flow of change underneath your claims, not invalidating them but embellishing them in such a way that what you previously took to be simple, solid and self-identical now shows itself as harboring within itself a vibrant flow of change. Either you see this added downtime within the laws and facts or you don’t. If you don’t , your view is still valid and useful from the relativist’s perspective. — Joshs

How do you see the average person taking on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection? We live in a world of great dogmatic divisions - big question - is there are approach which less educated folk can employ to enlarge their perspectives?

'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is not an empirical question. It might just be a lyrical expression of wonder, like a wolf's howling at the moon... — jas0n

That's a nice line.

New Atheism came out of the post 9/11 era where the West to some extent rediscovered how dangerous theism can be. A market popped up - perhaps further energized by Christopher Hitchens's charismatic appearances. Mostly the focus was practical - the impacts of religion on the world - Aristotle, Aquinas, even Armstrong were mostly superfluous to the project.

At the time, I was not even aware of the movement of new atheism. — Jack Cummins

I don't think it is a movement, it was a time and place publishing phenomenon mainly. It probably also includes Michel Onfray who wrote, 'The Atheist Manifesto'. Taking down religious literalism is not really evangelism, but perhaps this is in the eye of the beholder.

We can easily criticize their work as insufficiently philosophical but the the point is they were writing polemical works, for the average reader, they were not engaged in serious philosophy. If they had been writing philosophy, they would have struggled to sell books.

But there are technologies that can help users discern intention and deception. Those are the kinds of solutions I'm interested in. — Bret Bernhoft

Interesting. I wonder how. Apologies for misunderstanding.

The answer/solution to defending against sophistry (in my opinion) are better media technologies. As another way of looking at this, imagine that there is an Internet Browser plugin, add-on and/or extension that could automatically collate references to/from/for any given statement, in an effort to help you determine its truthiness. That's the kind of approach to combating sophistry that would get my attention at the very least. — Bret Bernhoft

The issue isn't always truth, it's intention and deception. The content of a sophist and a truth teller will often look much the same.

reasoning to better, more probative, questioning — 180 Proof

reasoning to better, more comprehensive, conjecturing — 180 Proof

Poetry.

Philosophy begins with the abstract and moves toward the concrete. "Here is the question, now what is the answer?"
Science begins with (what it considers) the concrete and moves more toward abstract explanation. "Here is the answer, now what is the question?" — Yohan

For me these would be a definition of mediocre philosophy and even worse science. Philosophy spends significant time and energy on working to clarify what the actual questions might be. This is not always apparent.

Science is frequently a creative enterprise that begins with an imaginative hypothesis and tests it. Answers are a tentative model based on the best available evidence at the time. As you'll note, science is an ever changing iterative pathway to the best available models and is frequently limited or wrong. Then there are all those moments in science where discoveries are made by accident - like penicillin and lithium and the germ theory of disease.

A very considered answer, thank you.

One should avoid, at all costs, seeing any kind of foundational view of psychological systems as anything other than a story. A pragmatic narrative on which to hang the various results. And yes, that too is just a narrative. It's narratives all the way down - as the expression goes. — Isaac

Nicely put.

This is an intoxicating story.... — jas0n

I like what you write here.

Quick question however -

I think the way we live now is alienating and unreal ('society of the spectacle,' etc.) — jas0n

When did humans last have a culture that did not contain its share of unreality and alienation? One of the other great intoxicating stories is the notion of paradise lost or, in internet comments language; 'Everything today is worse that it used to be...'

I'm at pains to point out that it's not exactly 'theism' that at issue. — Wayfarer

Yes and no. The idea of god being dead, with all foundational values collapsing, is on the table in this discussion. And Weber's idea of disenchantment also springs from theism's gradual diminution from Western cultural life. But of course we can locate foundational values in idealism and mysticism too.

And I would obviously not agree. — Wayfarer

Exactly and a good illustration of how theism offers no objective basis to morality. It simply allows a believer to cherry pick or intuit what they think a god would want. It's entirely down to the subjective interpretation of the theist. Which is why religions can't agree upon moral beliefs in the first place - they are all over the place when it comes to war, gay rights, the role of women, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, tax reform,... you name it.