Enjoy! Also take a look at On Meaning And Language and On Intention, and On Practical Action, all of which cover in more detail the relationship between belief and intention on my account. I'll be away for the weekend as soon as I go to bed shortly, but might be able to make brief replies from my phone.

One major difference between religious systems and non-religious ones is that faith in non-religious systems is more easily justified by their utility at helping to provide useful strategies... — Isaac

This may be true, but strategies are applied as the means to ends. We still need to judge the ends themselves, to produce a true justification, a justification which is more than just an illusion. This requires that the ends are put in relation to further ends, as the means toward those ends.

It's like the distinction between a valid argument and a sound argument. One can say my logic is valid therefore my conclusion is justified, but this is just an illusion of justification, because the premises might not be sound. Therefore we need to put the premises in relation to some further principles of truth, to judge how "good" they are, in order to produce a true justification.

That is the problem with your claim that faith in non-religious systems is more easily justified, the justification referred to here is just an illusion.

I don't really see how it could possibly be less useful than intuition, since intuition is where you start from and then try to improve upon it. — Pfhorrest

I just don't see conversations like that really taking place through, or doing what you think they're doing. When I talk about intuition, I'm not talking about using intuition to answer some moral question (how late should abortion be allowed, for example). I'm talking about it in the virtue ethics sense of making you (the actor) feel right. That's not necessarily a question that can be answered using your empirical methods.

Basically, intuition often gets crowded by the social pressures of 'debate', no matter how rationally carried out, and if we're not determining moral actions to be in line with our intuition, then what are we aiming for?

it's just a matter of getting people to have a common base of experiences that, they can all confirm for themselves, sure enough seem good or bad at least, — Pfhorrest

Agreed...but

and then from that common base working out what states of affairs avoid the experiences that seem bad and only leave ones that seem good (or minimize/maximize at least), and then the hard work of figuring out how to bring about those good(-seeming) states of affairs while avoiding bad(-seeming) ones. — Pfhorrest

No. This is just too much mico management ignoring the value of the very intuition that gave the objective.

I think you're creating too sharp a distinction between feeling - perception - action which just isn't there. I don't think we can trust the intuitive feelings (which we label 'good') but not trust the intuitive behaviour (even without a clearly thought out objective). I don't think we can work towards some feeling of 'goodness' as an objective but then try to work towards it with empirical facts as if the perception of those facts wasn't biased by the very feeling their collection is working toward.

2. I don't see anything there about judging hyperbolic discounting (future possible hedonic gains are worth less than current definate ones). — Isaac

I'm not sure what you mean here, you'll need to elaborate. — Pfhorrest

So hyperbolic discounting is the name for the effect I described earlier, good things now are worth more than equally good things in the future. I was wondering how your system accounted for it. Is the discount rate one of the things we just 'feel', or is it one of the "work out how to get there" things?

That is the problem with your claim that faith in non-religious systems is more easily justified, the justification referred to here is just an illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

How so? We can't continue to justify a system by logical measures (like non-contradiction). At some point it's just a faith and the justification is utility. Non-religious systems tend to be used for prediction, so their utility is more easily measured. Religious systems are rarely used for prediction, they're rarely used for any kind of function which produces results in this world, so most of the time they cannot be justified by utility.

Increase awareness, connection and collaboration — Possibility

I agree with that. But what are you increasing your awareness, etc about?

As for the kittens, you still haven't disproven the wrongness of drowning kittens in burlap sacks. All you're saying is that it can't be the only principle you follow. It's not exhaustive in scope. But neither is 2+2=4.

I would really like to see what Mark Dennis and @Artemis have to say about the proposition the video makes. — god must be atheist

I will have to get back to you later about the video.

I agree with that. But what are you increasing your awareness, etc about? — Artemis

What woudn’t it be good to increase awareness of, when the opportunity arises?

As for the kittens, you still haven't disproven the wrongness of drowning kittens in burlap sacks. All you're saying is that it can't be the only principle you follow. It's not exhaustive in scope. But neither is 2+2=4. — Artemis

I don’t have to disprove it - I agree with it as an instruction, but it’s not an ethical principle. An ethical principle is a foundation thought or idea that makes an ethical standard correct. Adhering to an ethical principle should provide sufficient guidelines to act correctly. All this statement does is prevent a specific action, while giving no indication of what a correct action would be in the situation.

I’m not saying it needs to be exhaustive in scope, and I acknowledge that ‘inaccurate’ is not the best term to describe why the statement is not an ethical principle. The statement ‘Don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ is inadequate as an ethical principle. If you asked me what two plus two is, and I gave the answer ‘two plus two is NOT five’, the statement would be correct in itself, but its function as a statement of what two plus two is would be inadequate. Likewise with the statement I’m questioning above.

What woudn’t it be good to increase awareness of, when the opportunity arises? — Possibility

In ethics, increasing your awareness of the the specific shade of lipstick Mary Tyler Moore wears on the Dick Van Dyke Show seems fairly nonessential, for example.

If you asked me what two plus two is, and I gave the answer ‘two plus two is NOT five’, the statement would be correct in itself, but its function as a statement of what two plus two is would be inadequate. — Artemis

Ethics and math share this striking resemblance: it's of equal importance to figure out when something is wrong as it is to figure out when something is right.

I agree with that. But what are you increasing your awareness, etc about?
— Artemis

What woudn’t it be good to increase awareness of, when the opportunity arises — Possibility

In the end, when increasing ethical awareness, etc., you're going to be working on your awareness of ethical principles.

How so? We can't continue to justify a system by logical measures (like non-contradiction). At some point it's just a faith and the justification is utility. — Isaac

Just as I explained. That X is good, because it is efficient for bringing about the desired effect Y, is not a real justification, it's an illusion of justification. It is required that Y be demonstrated as good, in order for the justification to be real. That utility is justification is an illusion, because utility is relative to the goal, or end which grants the thing its usefulness, and this goal must itself be justified. That's why Wayfarer referred to the need for a "summum bonum". So your claim that non-religious systems are more easily justified is false because the 'justification' you are referring to is not justification at all, but an illusion of justification.

That X is good, because it is efficient for bringing about the desired effect Y, is not a real justification, it's an illusion of justification. It is required that Y be demonstrated as good, in order for the justification to be real. That utility is justification is an illusion, because utility is relative to the goal, or end which grants the thing its usefulness, and this goal must itself be justified. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

A well put meta- (or criterion).

Ethics and math share this striking resemblance: it's of equal importance to figure out when something is wrong as it is to figure out when something is right. — Artemis

There is something here that you seem to be overlooking: 2+2=4 is NOT a mathematical principle. So as ‘right’ or ‘accurate’ as the statement may be in itself, it is not a principle but a specific example of the principle of addition, and is inadequate as a statement of the principle to which it refers - even though it is more useful than the statement ‘two plus two does not equal five’.

Likewise, as ‘right’ or ‘accurate’ as the statement ‘don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ is in itself, it is only a specific example of a broader ethical principle. As a statement of whatever ethical principle you think it describes, it is not only inadequate, but is less useful than a positive statement in describing that principle.

I hope I have made my argument a little clearer.

Just as I explained. — Metaphysician Undercover

You haven't 'explained', you've asserted. There's a difference.

...is not a real justification, it's an illusion of justification. — Metaphysician Undercover

- Why not? You haven't explained your main objection. Why is utility not a justification for adopting a system? All you've done so far is asserted that it isn't, not provided any explanation as to why.

It is required that... — Metaphysician Undercover

- Required by whom or what?

...this goal must itself be justified — Metaphysician Undercover

- Must it? Must everything be justified? How does that work non-circularly? If 'The Goal' is what I feel what am I supposed to do on finding that it is not justified (by your method which you've yet to reveal)? Am I supposed to now not feel that way?

So your claim that non-religious systems are more easily justified is false because the 'justification' you are referring to is not justification at all, but an illusion of justification. — Metaphysician Undercover

- So religious commandments have all of the criteria you list above, or lack them just as much?

"As if you had anticipated my question, you say "don't cause unnecessary suffering" is the ultimate code of ethics."
— god must be atheist
Interesting choice of paraphrasing. I did not say "ultimate." I suggested that it is one example of an underlying principle that I believe to exist in most cultures across the world. Now, I haven't exhaustively studied all world religions/ethics, but I have yet to come across one that actually contradicts the wrongness of unnecessary suffering. Though people might disagree on what things are necessary or are suffering, generally all ethics seeks to reduce the sum total of suffering.

Or can you give me a good counter example? — Artemis

You're right. It is not a code of ethics. It is a CHARACTERISTIC OR PROPERTY OF ETHICS. But it is also a characteristic or property of many things.

(An example would be car design. You could design a car seat for the driver that has tacks on the seat, pricking the driver. It would cause unnecessary suffering, yet it has nothing to do with ethics. Or more at hand, some car seats are more comfortabel than other seats for drivers, while some two drivers may find the seat that is comfortable for one, may be uncomfortable for the other, yet it is not unethical to put the particular seat in a car in the course of the manufacturing process.)

So we are back at square one. I still claim, because you yourself denied that you defended the idea successfully that there is an ultimate and pervasive ethical principle that applies to all cultures. My point is that such principle does not exist. Your point is that it exists. I opine that if you insists that it exists, then it is your responsibility, or rather, that the onus is on you to show that your claim is true, and there is an underlying principle. My job is to show that such principle is not universal, or not ethical, or not applicable.

It is definitely tougher for you, inasumch as you have to prove something exists that nobody has found yet. My job is not possible until I have something concrete in front of me that you show me that supports your claim.

That's why Wayfarer referred to the need for a "summum bonum". So your claim that non-religious systems are more easily justified is false because the 'justification' you are referring to is not justification at all, but an illusion of justification. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is there a philosophy of good, such as the epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge, and ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morals, and aesthetics is the branch that deals with beauty.

If there is no formal discussion on what constitutes good, then the quality of good is like a sore missing tooth in the grinding jaws of philosophy. ("How can a missing tooth ache?" You may want to ask.)

Good is wholly undefinable. That something is good or not is a subjective judgment, and therefore to justify X as good because it leads to Y where Y is also good, is only justifiable by personal subjective means.

If you or anyone else justifies moral actions on whether they are good or not in intention or in final result, then you or anyone else is walking on thin ice.

I hope I have made my argument a little clearer — Possibility

I asked before and you evaded the question, but I'll ask again: how broad or narrow does an ethical principle have to be to fit your definition thereof?

My point is that such principle does not exist. Your point is that it exists. — god must be atheist

No. I'm not saying and have never said that there is one naive Kantian maxim by which all ethics function. You can stop strawpersoning me now.

I have said, and you have yet to disprove, that there are commonalities between ethics globally.

No, I'm not going to do a survey of all ethics across the globe to prove it, as that would be a project of many years, and simply too much work for an online discussion. I assume you feel the same way about proving your own position.

Therefore, we can agree to disagree or try this from a different angle.

Good is wholly undefinable. That something is good or not is a subjective judgment, and therefore to justify X as good because it leads to Y where Y is also good, is only justifiable by personal subjective means. — god must be atheist

(1) Is harm (e.g. betrayal, rape, deprivation, injury, trauma, incapacitation, bereavement) judged "good or not" for the harmed "a subjective judgment"?

Consequently:

(a) Is 'conduct which, ceteris paribus, avoids, prevents, minimizes or helps recovery from harm' judged "good or not" "a subjective judgment"?

(b) Is 'conduct which, ceteris paribus, inflicts or exacerbates harm' judged "good or not" "a subjective judgment"?

If all answers above are "no", then by implication don't we have at least a provisional (non-subjective) definition, or conception, of "good or not"?

You say there are commonalities between ethics globally. I hope I did not misquote you this time.

Please name a global commonality between ethics globally that pertains to nothing but ethics. It does not have to be all inclusive; but it can't be applied to anything BUT to ethics.

This commonality does not need to be a single quality; you could name a combination of qualities, but in combination they must apply to all ethics globally and to nothing else but ethics.

As you can see, I am not asking you to define ethics, or give an inclusive description of it; all I ask is one characteristic that is ethics-specific, and not specific to any other thing.

If you can show me such a criterion or characteristics of ethics, then I will agree to disagree. Otherwise I still maintain that there are no ethical principles as such.

As long as you fail to show a characteristic of ethics as a quality that applies to ethics and to nothing else, your ideation that there is a commonality amoung ethics globally is not a philosophically acceptable propostion, but a personal opinion of yours. Nobody can take it away from you, but you must realize that you can't argue on ethical grounds for anything, as ethics mean to you something different from what ethics mean to other philosophers.

You haven't 'explained', you've asserted. There's a difference. — Isaac

An explanation is a series of assertions intended to elucidate. That's what I provided. If what I am saying still remains unintelligible to you, then I have failed in that intention. I have "explained", but my explanation has failed.

Why not? You haven't explained your main objection. Why is utility not a justification for adopting a system? All you've done so far is asserted that it isn't, not provided any explanation as to why. — Isaac

OK, I clearly failed in my attempt. I'll try again. Utility is determined in relation to a goal. A thing is useful for obtaining such and such a goal, and that determines utility. Now, goals are inherently subjective, varying from one subject to another, due to the fact that they exist relative to one's intention. Intention is the property of an individual.

Justification, as it is defined, and generally understood, requires that one demonstrates the correctness, or rightness of what the person is claiming. This means that for the justification to succeed, and actually be a justification, there must actually be success. Notice the difference between explanation and justification. I can explain without success, but I cannot justify without success.

Demonstrating that a system is useful for obtaining my goal, does not demonstrate the correctness of the system because it requires that my goal is judged by the other person to be correct. If the system is useful for obtaining a goal which the other person believes is not a righteous goal, the system will not be justified no matter how useful it is. The utility itself will be judged as unrighteous, incorrect, and therefore unjustified. And an unjustified utility will not justify use of the system. In fact there will be the reverse effect. The more useful the system is for obtaining an unrighteous goal, the more unjustified the system is.

Therefore, I must first demonstrate to the other individual the correctness of my goal, before the utility of the system for obtaining my goal can be judged as justification of that system. And, the utility of a system, as justification for that system, is completely dependent on justification of the goal which the system is useful for obtaining. Are you not familiar with the phrase "the end justifies the means"?

Is that a better explanation?

Must it? Must everything be justified? How does that work non-circularly? If 'The Goal' is what I feel what am I supposed to do on finding that it is not justified (by your method which you've yet to reveal)? Am I supposed to now not feel that way? — Isaac

Where's the circularity? If the goal is not justified, then the means for obtaining that goal (the system) is not justified. Isn't this straight forward and obvious to you? It seems pretty basic.

So religious commandments have all of the criteria you list above, or lack them just as much? — Isaac

I haven't said anything about religious commandments, I'm addressing your deceptive claim that a system is justified by its utility.

Is there a philosophy of good, such as the epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge, and ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morals, and aesthetics is the branch that deals with beauty. — god must be atheist

I would say that the philosophy of good is moral philosophy. Morality involves distinguishing good from bad. Morality may be subsumed within metaphysics, as a branch of metaphysics. It is necessarily prior to epistemology because the "correctness" which epistemology relies on is a form of "good". That is what Plato demonstrated in The Republic. It is metaphysics because of the requirement of determining the ontological status of "good".

Good is wholly undefinable. That something is good or not is a subjective judgment, and therefore to justify X as good because it leads to Y where Y is also good, is only justifiable by personal subjective means. — god must be atheist

This is exactly why the ontological status of "good" needs to be determined. Your claims about "good", that it is "undefinable", and that whether something is good is a "subjective judgement" are themselves subjective judgements. So it appears like the nature of subjective judgements, and the ontological status of such, needs to be understood in order to understand "good". Do you believe that subjective judgements are real things, with real ontological status, the nature of which may potentially be understood?

If you or anyone else justifies moral actions on whether they are good or not in intention or in final result, then you or anyone else is walking on thin ice. — god must be atheist

How else would you propose that one might justify moral actions?

Why does it have to be exclusive to ethics? I don't understand that criterion.

And I already stated a common ethical principle: avoid causing unnecessary suffering. An example of how that gets applied globally is that murder is prohibited globally. While definitions of what constitutes "murder" differ, the fundamental concept is still global.

I asked before and you evaded the question, but I'll ask again: how broad or narrow does an ethical principle have to be to fit your definition thereof? — Artemis

As broad as you can make it.

Principle: ‘a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.’

‘Do no harm’ is a common statement of ethical principle in the health profession. I personally don’t find it adequate on its own (some people do), but in concert with other ‘principles’ such as autonomy, fidelity, veracity, etc, they seem to suffice for behaviour within the profession, at least.

If you consider ‘don’t drown kittens in a burlap sack’ to serve as a foundation for a system of behaviour, even as one of a set of principles, just how many different principles do you think there are?

As broad as you can make it. — Possibility

That leads you to something as useless as "just do it" or worse, "do."

just how many different principles do you think there are? — Possibility

Why should there be a limit?

While, sure, the kitten principle is a more specific version of "do no harm," that doesn't mean it's not a principle. Just like the law generally prohibits theft, but it also has more specific rules about specific kinds of theft.

I will have to get back to you later about the video. — Artemis

Thanks, look forward to it.

Why does it have to be exclusive to ethics? I don't understand that criterion. — Artemis

This is so that we can separate ethics from other things. I say ethics as a universal quality does not exist. If you can give just one thing that is exclusive to ethics and applies to all ethics, then while at the same time it does not prove ethics, and while at the same time it does not define ethics, the fact that there is one quality that is typical to ethics, and only to ethics, the existence of that one quality will give some respectability to the validity of the claim that ethics exists.

However, if you can't find even one, then I rest my case, and feel satisfied that you failed to show me that ethics exist.

However, if you can't find even one, then I rest my case, and feel satisfied that you failed to show me that ethics exist. — god must be atheist

Why are you ignoring what I said?

And I already stated a common ethical principle: avoid causing unnecessary suffering. — Artemis

Right, but it does not apply exclusively to ethics. Please read my car seat example as a support of my claim in this matter.

So you can say that ethics has to do with humans. But so does love, hate, and pilfering.

Or you can say that ethics has to do with fair trade and with respect for the next guy. That also applies to a whole range of things.

But if you find one thing that pertains to ethics, all ethics, and to nothing but ethics, then you showed me that ethics indeed exist.

Which part did I ignore? Maybe we cross-posted. I so totally did not ignore anything you wrote. If I did, please point it out.

P.s. I am going shopping. Be back and sometime later today I'll resume responding if you wrote anything new.

Maybe we cross-posted. — god must be atheist

Yup, that's what happened.

Right, but it does not apply exclusively to ethics. Please read my car seat example as a support of my claim in this matter. — god must be atheist

You've shown that principles might have non-ethical applications, not that this invalidates their ethical ones. No more than a tire used on a car invalidates the use of a tire on a bicycle.

You've shown that principles might have non-ethical applications, not that this invalidates their ethical ones. No more than a tire used on a car invalidates the use of a tire on a bicycle. — Artemis

Precisely!! You got it right.

Now show me that ethics is a different thing from everything else, by showing at least one quality (which may be a combination of qualities) that applies only to ethics. If you show that, then you prove that ethics exist.

I claim that you can't show that.

Much like that car tires and bicycle tires are both round, and made of a material that has a high coefficient in their resistance to pavement, but the difference is that car tires can support a car, and bicycle tires can't support a car; furthermore, car tires don't fit bicycle wheels and bicycle tires don't fit car tires.

This way I showed that at least a difference exists between car tires and bicycle tires, and they are different, from, say, tables, mind bottlenecks, spokes, and ratchet screwdrivers.

I wish you to show something in the same vein that shows that ethics is different from everything else, in combination of qualities or by a single quality. I put it to you, that you can't.