Good stuff in there!

All of nature hunts, kills, consumes, devours; vines strangle, weeds crowd out and take over, each animals draws oxygen from the air leaving waste in its path.

The question becomes whether we can give more than we consume, whether we can do something unnatural, and NOT consume meat, not crowd thing out, and whether this would be better for us and the animals and plants we don’t consume (because they will all go on devouring, hunting, eating meat, causing suffering and torturing each other).

It becomes a moral question by choosing not to be natural, but to be human.

Determinism frames the premise that our futures are set and unchangeable (human choices are not real), whereas non-determinism frames the premise that humans can change their fate (human choices are real). — I like sushi

I don’t think we should frame things in the future.

If determinism is true then the present is set.

If determinism is true, at no time in the present is my state the result of my own choices. If I am eating chocolate ice cream and I think this is because I freely chose it over the vanilla, the truth is, I am eating it presently for other reasons.

I can only know that the future is out of my hands, but I can’t say it is set.

All I know is that my present state is not the result of me being free from forces that always precede my present state, and free enough to insert my own choice into the chain and tide of forces that placed chocolate ice cream in my mouth.

But those forces could be random. They could be some other free agent, operating me like a puppet at their free will - who knows? But I need not conclude that my future is set; only that my present was constructed by other than my choices. And that my future is not mine to set by my “choices”.

Maybe this is the same result, but I think it makes it more scientific if a question, and less dramatic with words like “fate”.

truth does not tell us what is better. — I like sushi

I honestly think a conversation about whether or not we are free is like a conversation about whether or not there are words.

“Do words exist?”

Once you ask it, you are using the very objects you are looking for. It becomes absurd to speak this way.

Same thing with freedom. Stopping to deliberate IS freedom. We are free no matter what we choose or why we choose it once we deliberate, in that when we deliberate, we are no longer choosing or acting on choice but instead not acting yet as we deliberate.

So, instead of acting, we choose to deliberate. This sets us free.

Now if determinism is so thorough, each word my deliberation is bound to follow, then Inam not deliberating, but acting out a script forged in the moments leading up to that script.

Maybe.

Seems to me must make a choice on this question. Even if we deliberate and choose to believe that we are not free, that our thoughts and deliberations are determined, we are saying that, despite not being forced to KNOW this by reason, we BELIEVE it anyway, by choice. So we must even give our consent before we can accept we are determined.

This show to me the mechanism that is freedom. Thinking is free (or can be). In thought, is where a ground apart from all other forces can be born, and where one can claim “chocolate need not be, but is nevertheless, my choice, as I claim it.”

Maybe chocolate had to be, but at least in a compatibalist sense, I agree chocolate had to be if it was to be because of my choice. I agree. I take responsibility for it. I consent to the flow of forces.

I admit I haven’t shown anything, except that, like wondering if there are any words we seem to always use words, in wondering if we are free we seem to always be left with a choice.

Hey Banno.

And yet we would say that, for instance, the ass chose the trough on its left.

So I'm suspicious. It looks to me as if you are obliged to discount the ass's choice in order to avoid your thesis being falsified. — Banno

I would discount the ass made a choice. If I could ask the ass what his deliberations were that led him to his “choice,” and the ass didn’t say with his mouth full of trough food, “A what? I just started eating,” then I couldn’t say whether he choose anything. I have no idea if the ass recognized options, considered one and the other, and therefore deliberately determined one, not the other, before eating.

We should stick to an example where we know a choice can possibly be made, as in the act of a human, not an ass. It’s just a bottomless pit of “but what if..” that will illuminate nothing. And why go beyond our own experience as potentially deliberate choosers to find material to hypothesize about?

consider if a single principle ever implies a certain action, or whether a given action can be explained by any principle, given suitable ad hoc hypothesises. — Banno

A principle “implies” a certain action.

I wouldn’t say a principle implies any action. That’s backwards. Choices imply deliberations using principles. Principals don’t imply choices.

If you know a person is reasonable, and they appear to make a choice (or say they made a choice unlike an ass) would say, you can imply from this that they considered principals while deliberating and making that choice. But the principles don’t require any action or implication in themselves. We need principles, objects to choose, and deliberation among these to end up with a choice.

But you said

it is often the case that we must act despite not knowing which principles to apply,
— Banno — Fire Ologist

This implies deliberation, and other acts where sometimes we do know which principals to apply, or at least think we do as part of our choice when we act.

And you said “an action can be explained by any principle,” which sounds like an action might also be explained by no principle, and really, therefore, that we may as well avoid discussing any principles when discussing all acts.

So is there a such thing as an act based on principles or not?

If you say “no” then all of your statements above that you say address my point that use the word “principal” to make your point, don’t signify anything. If you say “yes” then I am simply saying that a discussion about “choice” starts where there is an act involving deliberation among objects and principles.

You can’t deliberate without the choices and the balancing between them, which balance is equivalent to some principal. You don’t choose without deliberation. You do something else maybe, but not by choice.

Or look at the discussion between Lakatos and Feyerabend about what constitutes a rational methodology, and apply it to choosing what to do.

Or consider how the Duhem–Quine thesis might apply to explaining an action in terms of a principle. — Banno

I’m familiar with Lakatos and Quine. But I’d rather hear your take on it addressing my take. You make sharp clear points at times. Maybe I’ll learn something.

I don't see anything here that has not already been addressed. — Banno

You can’t talk about “must act” as in a more deterministic act, like a reflex, and say “act without knowing the principles,” as both involving choice. AND then talk about simply needing a suitable ad hoc, after the fact explanation using “any principal,” as if there need be no such thing as an act based principal, and retain that there are any acts based on any principals.

Seems to chase its tail in order to devour the whole possibility of a chosen act.

Maybe that’s your point - we never actually deliberate or ever choose. But if we do, principals have to be in the mix, inside the deliberation, with the optional objects chosen.

it is often the case that we must act despite not knowing which principles to apply, — Banno

You said “we must act”.
And you said “act despite not knowing the principles.”

So there is acting based on principles,
and there is also acting despite not knowing the principles.

Putting aside the use of the words “must” and “knowing” for a second, it seems to me a decision or choice is a kind of “act” that only occurs when one deliberates among principles and objects chosen (or not). You need all of those things to have a choice, an act of choosing.

Like an instinct, or a reflex, some acts are not deliberate. Reflexive acts are not choices made “despite not knowing which principles apply.” They are not choices at all. They are other acts.

If you want to put acts on a spectrum where “choice” is on one side and “reflex” is on the other, you can, but this just judges how deliberate the act is, not whether a deliberate act is a choice, and a non-deliberate act is not a choice.

So if an ass appears to pause and deliberate, and then “choose” this hay or that food but the ass does not deliberate, then the outcome, whatever it may be, is not a choice, but some other effect, some other act. Like a heartbeat, it’s an act not involving choice. Nor involving principles (like “must”). Or deliberation (reasoning, or “knowing”).

Basically, if we act despite not knowing principles (along with the objects we know now deliberated as “options”), we don’t act based on choice; we, like the ass, may not be choosing anything, though we act.

And all of this can be done in an instant, because we are quick thinkers. Or some of us are.

I prefer the frame of intersubjective communities of agreement such as Joshs posits. — Tom Storm

That’s certainly fine.

Would you agree that communities do change and change their minds, so the agreements reached can revise and change as well?

That may be all there is. Rolling with the change.

It’s getting along in a world where there are no absolutes, no agreements that all communities for all time would make. Again, no absolutes, only temporary agreements subject to revision and just change, may be all there is for us.

Is unsophisticated bad? — Tom Storm

We would need an objective judge to settle the issue. Otherwise we can make it bad, or good, or neither, or both. And we could argue it all day.

I have no faith in the freedom of will, but I live as if it were a constant reality - because: What are the options? — Vera Mont

Interesting - we have no choice but to live as though we make choices.

unsophisticated theists — Tom Storm

Billions of theists for thousands of years, since the time of the Shaman and medicine man - all of them so unsophisticated.

They probably don’t even know when they are being insulted - need a priest to tell them “unsophisticated is bad.”

(A) I believe there are objective truths.

(B) I believe moral naturalism consists of objective truths — 180 Proof

Great! Interesting. Do you agree with me then, that anyone who does not believe in natural, objective truths, really has no ground to stand on to build up a morality?

Would you call your morality utilitarian? It’s built in part based on pleasure and pain and the habits we can build around these indicators?

I believe that any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective (i.e. arbitrary, relativist, emotive, dogmatic, superstitious, etc), therefore not objective. — 180 Proof

Is it necessary logically that “any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective”? Just because God said to Moses “thou shalt not murder, steal, and lie” doesn’t mean “any 'morality' based on or derived from merely subjective ideas like (theistic) gods are also merely subjective” and needs to be thrown out. It’s still an objectively good idea to say murder is wrong, no matter how you derive that idea. Or at least it can be.

Aren’t suffering, pain and pleasure subjective, and in part used by you in your argument to develop morality?

I’m picking up that you look down on superstitious children who say “God” emotively. Thought I’d let you know, I’m a thinking adult.

I don't believe in "God" ... and, because there are objective truths, I'm a moral naturalist. — 180 Proof

Well then you might be agreeing with me!

Some people who don’t believe in God, also say things like “there is no truth” or “there are no absolutes.” So, again if you didn’t believe in any of that, why play moralist.

But you, you don’t believe in God, but you do believe there is objective, universal, natural law. An absolute standard. So something is there for you to work out a morality.

If, along with God, you did not believe in objectivity, what do you think would animate a debate over some moral law? I found, not enough.

[W]hy make moral laws we all should follow if there is no such thing as laws we all should follow?

Morals =/= laws; your question doesn't make sense.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Why make moral laws we all should follow if there is no objectivity we all must follow?

If there is no possibility of obtaining objective, universally applicable truth, why would we bother to debate universally applicable morality?

How about now? You seemed to understand it before. Just a rephrase of a simple question.

Why bother with ethics if there is no chance for a standard, any standard?

There, I said it again. How about now?

Now that you've become a theist, you still aren't looking for answers. Instead of looking for answers and think critically, you assumed that the answers are about being an atheist or theist, and that objective truth is contingent on being one of those. — night912

No, that’s backwards. When I was an atheist, I figured out that there has to be an objective truth. So I was still thinking critically ( not about morality because that seemed pointless). But once I realized I couldn’t shake objectivity, in my case, it eventually led me back to theism (along with other things).

If there is no objective truth, questions and answers about morality are pointless. The answer to every question is the same - we’ll never know for sure, because there is no absolute objectivity.

You would want to refute that instead of diagnosing my problem.

[W]hy make moral laws we all should follow if there is no such thing as laws we all should follow?
— Fire Ologist
Morals =/= laws; your question doesn't make sense. — 180 Proof

Started this few posts back saying if I didn’t believe in God and objective truth, I’d see no reason to make moral laws or argue with anyone about them.

Does the above make sense to you now?

We can't even agree on which gods or why gods or how gods. — Tom Storm

Sure we can - it’s possible. It’s called a religious sect, or maybe a Church. Some ideas are stupid, and others ring true. Same for ideas of God. Same for all ideas.

It’s like you are looking for someone else to tell you where God is, before you will even look for God in the first place.

Even those who see God can’t tell you where God is, for you. Your own eyes alone see God. I can only tell you where God is, for me.

For instance, I can tell, God is in your life. I see it in your posts (some of them).

I wrote the rest of that for nothing?

You won’t speak to my point at all?

You can’t get there? It’s a simple point: why make moral laws we all should follow if there is no such thing as laws we all should follow? Simple, didn’t work and you asked for more, so I wrote more and showed you I understood you.

Have no idea whether you get what I said. Just that you don’t like it.

All you were saying misses my point, and I responded to it anyway.

Thanks for the winky face :broken:

We can debate what is right and wrong and we, as Christians, can invoke god's name, but we don't have any certain way to establish how god wants us to behave. ' — Tom Storm

I agree we don’t have any certain way (that comes from anyone else but our own selves) to establish how God wants us to behave. God doesn’t send everyone text messages. How we each decide to actually behave and what we actually do is for each of us alone, even alone from God. So I can sit with that part of the quote.

I also agree that when we are together talking about how we might behave, building moral systems together, we struggle to interpret the words and traditions. And this debate among even members of the same religion, is really the same activity (just a different subject) as people discussing the best government or best economy, or even the best interpretation of any data into any system.

But what are these debates for? What will my behavior actually be? What can I use from outside of my own wits to inform this behavior? Is there any objective end to the debates and interpretations?

Personally I have to believe the reason for certain debates is to find one truth, one morality for all of us equally, for all minds and for all gods.

If the above Christian who says he has no idea how God wants him to behave, and who said we must debate interpretations when talking about it, if he ALSO thought there was no such thing as objective truth, and no actual knowledge of God was possible at all, then what would be the point of all the debating? He may not particularly know God’s will, but if he thought he never would or could know God’s will, why ever discuss God’s will again? And if that was his final lesson to you, he was a poor priest, at least on that occasion.

I’m not disagreeing with the conundrum it is to be a human being, to figure out what is the right thing to do is, to know no matter what happens at least I tried the best that I could. It’s as hard for a theist as it is for an atheist to figure this shit out.

But from that starting point of nothing to go on, just like anybody else (no one telling me how to behave, free to figure it out), I happen to believe we can get somewhere together, that that are a few places all minds are already participating in, and that is objectivity, or truth, or when universalizing moral systems, for me, God is equivalent to objectivity or truth.

If I didn’t think there was anywhere in the universe where the truth was laid bare for anyone to see, where something good was only good and so forever good, then I (ME, doesn’t have to be anyone else) wouldn’t talk to Christians or argue with atheists, or theists or philosophers about any of it.

And just because I can’t prove to you what the objective truth is, doesn’t mean it is not still apparent to me that it exists.

I tried to show you how it works for me, just to attempt to fight off the tactical straw man accusation.

Like proving I have a body, and there is a physical world of causes and effects. I can’t prove any of it is real to a well schooled modern philosopher, but I have no problem believing it is real and even obvious at times (pain and pleasure), as it gets murky at other times (hallucinations and dreams).

Just like that, I see objectivity all around me. And in the objectivity of morality, Insee God. So now it’s worth trying to articulate what I see to other people, to debate, to have discussions arguing scriptures or eastern mysticism. There really is truth, so it’s worth the struggle.

But if I didn’t think that, I would understand not seeing the point to any debate, to any label or objective truth, to any indication that X is something God must want.

All the religious person can do is interpret scripture or respond from personal perspectives regarding how they 'imagine' god wants them to behave.

Again - this is not about the nature of theism or atheism, it's about the nature of moral systems which can help but be pragmatic, adaptive and evolving. — Tom Storm

All the religious person can do is the same thing anyone can do.

Think of it this way: objective truth is to logical discussion, what God is to moral behavior - it’s the reason to pursue the activity, and join others to the debate for as much help as we can get.

If didn’t believe in God, I’d see no point in debating moral behavior with a bunch of other monkeys like me - I already know you, just like me, we’ll never settle any debates. And similarly, if I didn’t believe in objective truth, I’d see no point in debating really anything philosophical. Just like if Indidnt really believe I had a body, living in an ecosystem on earth, I’d see no reason to debate biology and physics or anything philosophical. (Body is a no brainer to me, yet people debate it.)

Objectivity, like God, is there. For me. Just there.

Or I wouldn’t see the point in debating.

I truly wish I could show you, to give you the meat you seem to be demanding (which is not my point and why we are talking past each other, or at least I’m talking past you).
Here, I’ll try. Proof of objectivity and a pointing in the direction of God.

Objectivity is the law of non-contradiction. It is math and logic itself. We can’t speak at all, and language would never have developed if there wasn’t before this development an objective world of many different objects in reasonable, intelligible relations. Just is. Like gravity. There is shot that can be known for what it is. That’s the shortest way for me to say why I believe (not know for certain) that there is objectivity. I don’t see how objectivity can not exist without it not existing in the context of an objective world (so it still exists). An object cannot both be, and not be, in the same sense, at the same time. You need an object in this world for non-contradiction within that object to be in this world.

As for belief in God, there is no way to be short. But maybe the most logical thing to say is, if I believe in an objective world I can truly know (once in a while), and I see there are other people like me who see this same truth (or are capable of it), and they share their lives with me, and we need there to be a moral system among us all, wherever we together call something “good”, this moral good between us is now personal; it’s something now shared only among persons, and so this shared good may as well be God, and to me, is in fact God. By seeing, for instance, that it is good to sacrifice to save the people we love, to go to work to help not yourself, but others, I see this love itself between the two people as part of the substance of God. It’s tied up in words and actions and intentions and reasons and meaning - all things human and Good, are of God, with God, in God, and if we choose, for God. We make God up together, and when it is good what we have done, God is really there. And immediately God is so much more than that, while at the same time, that enough to know all of God.

But I’m not going to be able to prove God exists or show you something objective about God. Only grace will open you up to that, so that is up to you and your God, or maybe you know there is nothing objective to ever know about God so I’ve just been talking to myself again.

I don’t have to prove that to make my point. I know you aren’t seeing my point without some example of one objective truth or something objective about God, so I gave it a shot.

I keep just saying my point is simply that, if I didn’t believe in God, I’d lose sight of all objectivity among us people, and so I wouldn’t bother to philosophize about morality anymore.

Well I understand you don’t believe in god or religion, and you don’t seem to be an Aristotelian platonist about objectivity, so if I was you, I wouldn’t argue with me either (which was my point).

I don’t blame you for ending the conversation. It’s actually is an example of the point I was making.

Well, if you stick to such straw men then this conversation won't go anywhere — Tom Storm

I’m not arguing why I believe in God and objective truth. You are asking me to justify my beliefs to you as if I was using my beliefs to justify something about atheists.

I’m simply saying if I personally did NOT believe in objective truth, I wouldn’t see the point of philosophy, and if I didn’t believe in objective morality, I wouldn’t see the point of any morality.

The thread is about whether atheism is logical or not. Maybe there are no gods. Maybe atheists are right about that. I’m just saying what I think logically follows from an atheistic worldview - absolute truth and objective morality disappear as well, from what I can tell. This isn’t an original idea. Nietzsche called one of his books “beyond good and evil” and belittled those with a “will to truth” as lying to themselves, and said “God is dead” to make his point thoroughly.

even if you grant there might be gods you can't demonstrate which one is real or what god's moral system is. — Tom Storm

Ok, but that is a different issue. If we grant that there is objectivity and God serving as judge of moral objectivity, now it is worth struggling to find out what God means, what is truth. It is worth having this discussion.

I’m willing to keep searching and talking about it, because I believe there is an objective truth.

Which brings me back to my simple point. If I didn’t grant (by belief and my own reasons) that there was truth and objective morals, then I would see no reason to argue about it.

I’ll give you an example of where this is coming from.

There is a whole thread on here asking if there is a physical basis for an “object”.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15297/is-there-any-physical-basis-for-what-constitutes-a-thing-or-object

So philosophers can doubt the difference between an apple and a tree trunk is anything more than a mental construct. The world-in-itself is unknown to us, and the lines we draw around things are only lines in our minds.

This is a real epistemological and metaphysical issue. It’s a conclusion that is currently popular (been around since Socrates). It’s how we show that gender isn’t fixed for instance - we draw the lines we want to draw as there are no lines in an objective world we have access to (if such a world exists).

I live in the same world as those philosophers. I get the epistemological and metaphysical issues.

But I just think we have a lot more work to do to demonstrate the objective. I don’t therefore think there are no differences in a physical world apart from me. I believe those of us who think every “object” we take up is ONLY constructed by ourselves, are just wrong, because there is an objective reality with mind-independent distinctions in it.

The problem with “what is an object” doesn’t lead me to believe “there are no objects” it leads me to believe we have a lot more to investigate about the world and a lot more to clarify in our discussions about it.

The problem with “what is the real God, and what does it matter to me anyway” doesn’t lead me to believe “there are no gods” it leads me to believe we have a lot more to talk about.

This is because I believe there is an objective world or truth and morality.

I get thinking there is no truth. I get thinking there is no god. I don’t get philosophizing and developing ethics despite those facts. You can, but I wouldn’t.

Determinism says every present effect follows a prior cause / that’s the only mechanism of physical interaction among agents.

But Hume and Kant showed there is no cause and effect - they are just constructions that might have nothing to do with the world in itself.

So free will is defeated by a world utterly determined by the cause/effect mechanism, and the cause/defect mechanism is defeated by a critical understanding of how the mind inserts cause and effect for its own categorical purposes.

But how would the defeat of physical cause and effect by a mind so detached from the world it knew nothing in itself, set one free in the physical world?

Huge conundrum.

My mind is made up. I am completely free to accept that I am not as free as I thought I was. Recognizing one’s limitations sets one free.

Freedom is a possibility.

My mind is made up, until something changes it, for me to claim it as mine again.

The question is not why we understand each other, but how are systems of values and knowledge formed through interaction , and how do they change over the course of history, — Joshs

But what happens when you realize that everything we construct today will utterly change and be wiped away? What happens to the “objectivity” that is derived from the shifting sands?

It never was more than an illusion. Intersubjectivity only becomes objectivity by convention.

Look, I think there is an objective, mind independent physical world, that is intelligible to minds to varying degrees that can be logically tested, and that logic reflects the fact of objects being in the world. There is truth and wisdom to be gleaned FROM experience.

But I only think this because nothing else makes any sense at all. If I thought no-god and no-truth made sense, then no more objective mind independent reality and all intersubjectivity is a game played in the phenomenal world, as reality is always once step removed (if it exists at all).

It’s subjective any way you go. — Tom Storm

Then why speak? It’s all babble. No one will ever truly know anyone or anything if it’s all subjective any way you go. Nothing is left to share among people in discussion. Anything shared would be objective.

Speak to the waitress when you are ordering dinner; speak to your kids when you are telling them it is safe to cross the street; speak to your politician when you disagree with a new law about traffic signs.

But if anyone says “Laws are good.” Or “Community is important” or “there is a natural kind of person, and a built in morality of doing no harm” or any such universal concoction - tell them “blah, blah, blah.” Remember that’s subjective BS, as equally meaningful as “laws are bad” and “community is unimportant.” and any response thrown out among other subjects is your own attempt at wish fulfillment.

Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, was known to reply to arguments by wiggling his finger. He believed all was so subject to change, nothing could be fixed long enough to be objective or “truth” - with his finger he showed he understood what this meant for philosophy, for speaking.

In the end, I think the subjectivists, the no-truthers, those who drain all meaning and purpose and value, are just wrong. I totally get their position. I admit they may be right (although being right is an objective statement and the first crack in the position). I’m saying if I stood still on their position, talking about morality or metaphysics, or “good” or “justice” or “truth” would be like talking about “God” or “fairy elves” or “human progress” - just another no sum game.

All you’re doing here is saying god equals objectivity — Tom Storm

No one can point to objectivity through reason and science alone. Plato tried, Aristotle, Hegel, Descartes - they are all punching bags to us post modern sages.

If all there is are us people, after thousands of years of bickering over philosophy and mysticism, and science and religion, we have so little agreement. We get Kant where the objective thing in itself is unknowable, we get Nietzsche showing us objectivity is for the weak, we get post modernism where “there is no truth”, we get Wittgenstein where meaning is a game.

It is fairly popular to say “there is no absolute truth, there is only my truth.” Fine if someone wants to think they’ve said something by saying that, but I call that bullshit. If you think there is only “my truth” just admit there is no truth at all.

I’m saying that if I concluded there was no truth, which is hand-in-hand with there is no god, I wouldn’t be writing home about it trying to convince people how much I “knew” this to be correct (can’t say “true”). If I concluded there was no god, I wouldn’t be writing down the new Ten Commandments of morality for all to learn from.

No objective moral position to guide us - then who the hell cares what anyone thinks?

“Thou shalt only call someone by the pronoun they have chosen, even if that pronoun can change without any visible indication of what that pronoun is.” Lets try to collaborate on a compromise with that starting point.

Objectivity has been so deconstructed, gender itself is just another pile of bullshit we tell ourselves.

No objectivity is like a religious belief.

So is objectivity.

I’m saying that I happen to believe in God. And I happen to believe people DO know the truth. These are beliefs. I, like Aristotle for instance, think there can be a science of this objective world, that we can discover and share in discussion. Because of those beliefs, discussion with other people about what they think about morality and truth has value to me. I can learn something objectively true - gain wisdom.

Im not wasting my time spinning wheels talking about what is correct and what is not correct about truth and morality when, if I was an atheist post modern thinker, the end of every conversation is “well we’ll never know, all we can do is make up our best, and go on with our lives in our bubbles of bullshit.”

No theist can identify objective truth either. They can only point vaguely to some amorphous god idea (as nominally foundational to whatever they think is real) a deity no one understands in the same way or expects the same things from. — Tom Storm

Im saying there is an objective truth. Maybe no one has said it, but because of my faith it’s worth trying to say something objective, universal, absolute - true for God as it would be true for any consciousness. God or truth or objectivity becomes like a limit we can shoot for.

But when I was an atheist, it didn’t matter that I couldn’t find it, that it might be an illusion - all of it became just as much bullshit as the “god idea” or the “deity no one understands in the same way”. All of it.

And as an atheist, it made sense that it was all bullshit. Why make any ethics, full of holes and overly confident in almighty “reason” and the wonderful ability to judge value? Objective truth, the stuff of reality without appearance was gone, so what use is ever using those words again to defeat appearance (for only other appearances are left when truth is gone).

But the atheists who strive to build a new objectivity, a postmodern wisdom, a new language game, are just as full of shit as the theists seem to be to you.

Without objective reality, who can really tell the difference between BS and something not-BS? No one.

There’s a reason Nietzsche said “ god is dead” when he was saying truth is overvalued and mostly a lie, and metaphysics and absolutes are bullshit, and instinct is the only invisible force that matters; because saying god is dead sums up the rest of it. Nietzsche was consistent enough to remain skeptical of scientists who thought they knew the nature of truth just as much as theists did. Bullshit speaks in every tongue.

I’m not saying people don’t come up with some great attempts at truth and ethics without god in them; it’s just that they are attempts, and not successful or effective enough to make a dent in the swamp of BS that we always create along with it. For me, without God, why bother trying again when there is no truth, nothing real about morality, no god?

I haven’t heard an atheist truly recover a real, relevant case for objectivity and meaning and purpose to philosophy and metaphysics. Nietzsche said you build it on a tightrope at best and inevitably the facade falls down. I agree with that, if god was dead to me.

Again, you have failed — schopenhauer1

wearing out my patience…stop misconstruing and strawmanning it — schopenhauer1

You told me to read it carefully and read it again and parse it out with questions. I don’t suppose you meant me to do that with the above.

Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. […] That is say, no person exists to be violated prior to procreation. The violation only takes place once procreation occurs. — schopenhauer1

Ok, the violation occurs when procreation happens. But you didn’t say the rule that’s violated (and I’m not going to dare to assume anything). The violation of what rule specifically in your words for me to parse out?

But I got this rule is violated once procreation occurs.

prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place!) versus remediative harm (the harm is already taking place, now a set of actions is needed to remediate it!). — schopenhauer1

That sounds like a rule in there. The rule seems to be to “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary.” Then, once procreation happens and the rule has been violated, you move to a different rule where, if there is harm already done “a set of actions is needed to remediate it.”

I think you said before AN has nothing to do with remediative actions. Which makes sense since AN is a pre-procreation moral guidance.

in a given context of a society means having to move about in public spaces- in the situatedness of a social sphere. This means, inevitably you will cause unintentional harm. — schopenhauer1

This seems to be about a wider moral position, and has stepped outside of a narrow focus on AN. The above all talks about how to treat other currently living people. In this context, and if I got the rule right, the rule being: “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary”, in the wider context of other living people we still must try to prevent harm, especially when unnecessary, but there can be harmed caused that is “unintentional harm.” And any step we take is towards remediation, not prevention first.

[Could negligent behavior blur the line between preventative and remediative acts? Is there a duty to try to prevent negligence, and while some acts are purely unintentional, others are wanton and grossly negligent sorts that we all have a duty to prevent? This is a tangent - forget the question.]

Positive ethics DOES matter in the sphere of existing to some extent, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily violate others. Remember the bridge argument? The fishermen want to catch the biggest fish of their life. It's blocking YOUR right to go to your car. Whatever pleasure they get from fishing and the collateral damage of causing your harm, it was unnecessary to "recruit" you into their project. This is different than being one car of many in traffic "recruiting" you into traffic. With the road situation, it is tacitly accepted that this is part of how roads worked. However, if a car wanted to stop traffic so they can look out the side of the road at some attraction, that is now falling into unnecessary "recruiting" territory. — schopenhauer1

I sum this up as making the point that what is wrong about procreation is that we are recruiting a future person into a life of suffering, and failing to prevent obviously unnecessary suffering.

I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability — schopenhauer1

I think you are making me do all the work and judging by your abilities you could do it way better, and tighter. You just don’t want to waste your time on a bad faith opponent - well you’re judging me harshly. I’m doing my best too.

I think people can be great parents, and are good people, but that procreation is still wrong. — schopenhauer1

I get it’s a tough moral choice to make. That was in The Revealers too.

The ethic is to not unnecessarily create more people that suffer, and to force people into a world based on one's own estimation of how much suffering is good (especially since the amount and kind of suffering for another is unknown as just a fact of the matter). It's then the inclination that must be re-educated, not the ethic. — schopenhauer1

You said “especially since the amount of suffering is unknown.” That adds an interesting element. “Amount of suffering” as a concept, plus this amount being “unknown.”

I don’t think the amount of suffering matters, and I don’t think the fact of suffering is unknown. We know every time we procreate we are recruiting someone into suffering. Period. Right?

As far as the re-education, I agree it would be in the face of inclinations and old habits. But I’m still trying to parse out the content of the education. That is a 2.0 discussion about inclinations and where they come from and why someone might resist AN. I’m just sticking to what AN is.

You even said yourself after talking about people who aren’t inclined to have kids, about religion and family as urging kids, as existential need for purpose.. “…Though of course, there are also plenty of horrible parents as well, but all of this is besides the point.”

So I don’t think I need to parse that part out yet to focus on what AN is.

I’m not intending to mischaracterize anything you are trying to explain, so if I do, that wasn’t my intent, so don’t accuse me of bad faith anymore, please. (If something is wrong, clarify it for me. Nothing wrong with wiping the blackboard clean and laying out a tight argument from the top again.)

Then you said this:

It is more than just suffering. If it was just suffering, I would consider myself a hedonic utilitarian or some such. It is rather about not using people by force recruiting them into projects that will harm them. Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, — schopenhauer1

So it is more about not forcing someone to be born at all, regardless of any suffering; it is about how “recruiting them into projects” is wrong. The fact that it is a project “that will harm them” makes it all the worse, but “it is more than just suffering. […] It is rather about not using people by force.”

This is why you don’t like my arguments about the amount of suffering. Suffering in life is a part of what is wrong about procreation, but it is the involuntary recruitment that might be the real heart of the rule that is violated.

So I had the rule as (trying to quote you) “ prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place.” But there is a second rule or complication to the rule (again that I hope you will clarify) something like (as tight as I can make to build less room for misinterpretation): “do not impose harm, especially when it can be avoided.”

So this confuses “prevent” with “not impose”. But I am seeing AN as more saying “do not impose” in order to get the involuntary recruitment aspect into it.

But that undermines all of the time spent parsing out “prevent” from “remediate”. That wasn’t really the issue. And that issue was related to the suffering, where first you must prevent suffering, but then once procreation happens and you are with the currently living you are following a rule relating to remediating suffering. But we also said that the suffering isn’t the heart of the issue.

So I think all of the arguments over prevent versus remediate and suffering and amounts of suffering, were off the mark (or at least my objections and rebuttals to those aspects of the arguments were off the mark). Because that wasn’t the real heart of the problem. That’s why it can be ok to cause some suffering in living people, because they can consent to that suffering.

The mark for AN has to do with the lack of consent to live at all.

It is wrong to force a being into existence when no such being could give its consent, therefore one should not procreate.

Is this right?

Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, where we are simply remediating suffering (doing the best with what we have, trading greater with lesser harms, negotiating our interests, etc.). — schopenhauer1

It is right. It sounds right to me. I still don’t think I’m mischaracterizing anything you are saying.

And I also still think it can all be summed up in a tighter argument where every word counts better than I’ve done here. I’m not sure if the best formulation of the rule involved ( “prevent harm” or “not imposing harm”).

There are holes that I can’t seem to fill, and that I’m afraid to fill for fear of “strawmanning”!!

There is an apparent vacillation on the place of the future non-existing baby that is both prevented from existing (as a future possible baby), and in which suffering is prevented from existing. I know that the baby never exists when the rule is followed and no violation occurs. But the rule itself seems to invoke the existence of a baby that cannot give its consent, to whom life is being imposed involuntarily; there’s a tension there that you (not me) introduce into the text. The existence of the baby seems to matter (actual) and not matter (potential) to the world this ethic describes.

And I still see a hole in the value of suffering to the AN argument. Something needs further clarity here. Does AN hold its ground regardless of any suffering or not?

But I’ve gone too far astray from the text.

Before you respond to all of the things I got wrong, can you at least admit how far I DO seem to understand it? Most of this whole post was me trying to restate you without causing any cringing.

It occurred to me that as soon as it is proven to me that I do NOT have free will, that I will still have to give my consent to never ask the question again.

Seems to me we either must have free will, or we will never be able to KNOW we do not have free will without a lingering acquiescence to that fact, and so a lingering agency.

But I don’t like the idea of a “will” as an organ like a “liver” or faculty of the mind even. We “are willing” and out of those acts we construct what we will to construct. There is an agent, but it is in the act of doing something that we simultaneously are doing something that we are willing to to do. You can’t really separate the specific act from the willing act when you are acting on your “free will”.

Not really a formed idea yet, but me I’m willing to keep considering.

Consent is the better word. Take all the determined forces around us completely out of our control that wash us down the speeding river into the violent ocean, and just give your consent (or not) to the same ride that was going to happen anyway. That’s where the will is born.

And yet, the individual stories aren't relevant and the aggregates are. *shrug*. Not an uncommon reality — AmadeusD

The individual stories aren’t relevant individually, but in order for the aggregate to display more or less suffering, you can’t gather individual stories about wood-working - you need individual stories that provide some insight into suffering levels.

f the goal is to reduce suffering in humans, eliminating humans is its ultimate good. The fact that Ethics then cease to exists doesn't say anything about it. No humans is a success. — AmadeusD

This sounds more pragmatic or utilitarian. Which may be the best spin on AN. If we treat humans like any other animal and for whatever reason want to reduce the suffering of humans, we could end procreation and let it all fade out.

I’m just saying if we humans think our ethics and morals are so important that we must live by them and uphold them above our own instincts and choose not to procreate for the sake of being moral and “good”, then we are defeating the seat of ethics in the world along with the lives that could have otherwise recognized and lived ethically; “because it is wrong to inflict suffering” is an ethic, and if this ethic is the reason we act, and our actions are to never procreate, then we are not only removing all of the suffering humans from the universe, but the ethics that inspired their removal in the first place.

You said free-thinking. So you meant free thinking as a result of deterministic neural activity. Got it.

secular humanists have long plugged away at building ethical frameworks quite consistently and effectively, — Tom Storm

Where? When? Who? Effectively?

No two philosophers can agree on anything, let alone build off of it together.

I’m not an expert on living the atheist life, but I didn’t always believe in God. And it was liberating. But also seemed incapable of addressing the bigger questions that didn’t go away. If I stayed atheist, I wouldn’t have come back to seeking answers, and more to the point, wouldn’t be talking about it with anyone else.

That’s the illogical part to me. If three people agree there is no god, there is no objective truth, there is no access to reality as it must be for all, then they should also agree that they have no idea whether each of them mean or agreed on the same thing - collaboration in philosophy and ethics becomes pointless.

if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless.
— Fire Ologist

I'm unsure it would. Its just far less high-stakes, i think. — AmadeusD

That makes sense. So, an atheist can have an interest in talking philosophy, truth and ethics, but in the end, as soon as they hit that pointless wall, the atheist can deftly switch to sports, the weather on upcoming vacation, and needing new shoes - higher stakes conversations. I get that.

Free thinking, free living. — 180 Proof

Lots of evidence there is no such thing as free will. The biggest proponents of free will are people who believe in good and evil objectively and a free agent who gets to choose among them, like a Christian does.

In order to flourish more than languish. — 180 Proof

If there are no rules, we can’t languish in the anxiety of breaking the rules. Why invent rules that can be broken and put yourself in a box of broken people. (Find a lot of people in there - maybe the music is good.)

Ethics is like a clear roadmap for how to walk to your best life, then we take a look and see that we are in a boat with no sail. Totally delusional along with the God that doesn’t exist.

Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.
Perhaps to a child ... — 180 Proof

Fairly adolescent response. The premise here is there is no god, no objective truth, and this will all be over soon enough. So let’s see what we can agree on and use it to help inform choices that might go against our instincts. And I’ve met a lot of annoyed atheists stuck in pointless (to them) conversations. I get that. They were “adults” too.

correcting falsehoods. — 180 Proof

You sound like the God of Abraham. Or Socrates. Or Descartes. Or the ministry of truth.

All humans can do (whether theist or not) is develop a system and hold a conversation in collaboration with the community to work out what we think is reasonable in the space of morality. — Tom Storm

I agree that is what we do.

But if I thought that was all we could do, I would see it as futile. I see in every age, the same outcomes of all of our politics, all of our civil codes, all of our aspirations for a better world - we get murder, lies, rallying cries for war, etc.

Democracy and capitalism were once the greatest hopes we crafted as collaborations for the community, and today, many think they are evil and doomed to corruption.

It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves.

Unless there is a measuring stick that is real that we are collaborating to find and emulate.

I’m not saying if I was atheist I would be an anarchistic, hedonistic sociopath, but I’m saying I wouldn’t bother to try to explain why not or tell some else they were wrong about whatever they did.

To me, it’s because we collaborate at all about anything that we experience the possibility of God. God is in the collaboration. So you take God out of it, the collaboration falls with it.

And there are a lot of cooky Catholics - AND, for all I know Peter Singer is a saint. I’m not judging him (or the nun and priest) - I’m just saying if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless.

Yes it's about suffering. Duh. But it's not suffering "tout court" in this case. It's about what surrounds it. The context. In this case the context that occurs when deciding to procreate. — schopenhauer1

Suffering itself is a physical, mental lived experience.

The context around suffering, to me, would be the body and its environment, or the psychology - both interacting between the suffering subject.

The deciding to procreate doesn’t make sense to me as the context surrounding the suffering. You need to be more precise.

Do you mean some suffering is neutral, not good or bad, but other suffering, like future suffering cause by procreating is good or bad, and in the CAE of AN, bad?

Don’t follow needing to think of the context of suffering to understand the arguments.

Link to a post where you think I’m not responding to you. The clear “here is the AN argument and here is why it is the most logical ethic” post or posts.

I don’t see why you think the things I’m saying are not relevant or in bad faith. Spell it out or give up.

I keep rephrasing what I think you are saying to show you clearly what I think you are saying, and then I post my objections.

I’m playing as fair as I can despite your accusations.

You just respond to my objections by calling me names.

How about laying out your argument, or linking to something you already said the for Nth time.

I’ll try it again anyway.

Is this AN??:

1. Living entails suffering.
2. Causing someone else to suffer (without their consent?) is bad (immoral, unethical), and preventing suffering or future suffering is good.
3. Procreation brings about new life, and the suffering entailed in that new life.
Therefore, procreation is a violation of the ethical rule stated in 2, procreation causes unconsented future suffering, and AN is the more ethical stance.

Is that AN? I am not sure whether consent is needed in the ethical rule of 2.

And instead of jabbing at wherever I have it wrong, show me where it is wrong, incomplete, unclear, but leave in the parts where it is right or clear (if any) so this can be a discussion that builds on prior assertions we’ve made. Lay it out so that I say “Wow, I did sound like I was in bad faith. I did have it all wrong.” Or really the point of any conversation, show me so I say “Schop was right, AN makes sense.”

Work in the asymmetry. I’m sure I would screw that up if I tried. Maybe it’s not essential to sure up the argument.

Work in the fact that specific future people do not matter to take the AN ethical stance towards them (as you said to correct me), but that the dignity of future people is the point of AN (as you said to correct me). And maybe address the issue of these two seeming (to me) to be incompatible.

Honest question - if I knew in my heart of hearts that the idea of a god, and the practice of a religion, were completely fabricated, wish fulfillment delusions, I would run from philosophy and ethics discussions.

I’m not saying anyone is wiser than anyone else, or anyone is or is not good - I’m saying if I knew there is no god, who cares what anyone else thinks about anything that is not testable in a lab, why ever discuss ethics if there is no measuring stick we all have to follow?

I’m not saying you can’t discuss ethics as a hobby, or because it’s just fun to look at all the people struggling with their fabrications called “the good” and “virtue” or “objective value” or “natural law” - but if none of these held any weight, why take any of it seriously?

Many atheists, like Peter Singer for instance, develop whole ethical systems and rules and judgments on other people’s behavior. I would just be reminded of Nietzsche’s opening lines to “On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense”: “After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, the clever animals had to die… There have been eternities when [the human intellect] did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened.”

No God, no hope for anything more than nature drawing its breath. Why be ethical at all? Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.

So maybe atheism is not only rational, but accurate, but if it is so, aren’t ethics and truth irrational? And by extension, all discussions about these fabrications wastes of breath?

How do you explain people who value being "child-free"? — schopenhauer1

There is no need to. We are are discussing the logic of ending procreation to make the world more ethical and prevent future suffering.

There is a law that murder is wrong. The fact that I am never inclined to murder and likely never will be makes it easy for me to follow that law. That’s a different conversation than whether “murder is wrong” is a good law, is something universal everyone should follow, and something we should teach all to understand. Even if we logically showed “murder is good” I still wouldn’t murder.

The question is only is AN sound ethics?

I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability and they can do whatever they want. They can handle snakes, pray to their god, say their holy Hosannas, spout out nonsense, red herring non-sequitors on an internet forum — schopenhauer1

I am trying to use logic only. I never raised any of these non-sequitors. You did, which makes it a non-sequitor to the conversation I’m having.

I only point this out to show you how much I’m trying to avoid bad faith. I’m sticking to the text and bringing up logical issues with it and new premises (like suffering is of less import and less valuable than the life of the one who suffers). I’m not resorting to anything else but my observations and wits - no insulting references to religious practices.

I’m not belittling the AN person - I’m attacking the logic behind the conclusion that in order to be ethical, we should not procreate.

If AN is an issue of personal faith, like other “holy hosannas and spouting out other nonsense, then I wouldn’t be arguing the way I am. But it’s a logical, ethical stance. One that doesn’t seem sound to me.

It's NOT about the dignity of the PARENTS. Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. — schopenhauer1

When I was arguing that we can’t be ethical towards a future person who does not exist, you went on and on about how it was not about the child. You said it was about the parent who was not inflicting suffering and preventing suffering and the non-presence of the child as recipient of the ethical behavior was irrelevant.

Now when I argue that (because there is no child) the human dignity AN ethics is trying to preserve has to exist in the living person who acts ethically (by preventing suffering and not procreating) you say it’s about the dignity of the future child.

I could level accusations of bad faith around too, but I’m just trying to point out the logical inconsistencies and am open to reasonable opposing views.

For instance, instead of thinking I know how the never going to Chicago scenario is so different than the never having children scenario, why don’t you lay it out? I think they are similar.

And instead of thinking I am fully aware of what I’m saying and acting in bad faith, show me how what I’m saying is not reasonable. Don’t just say it’s bad, show me.

I don’t think you are acting in bad faith towards me - I think you are being illogical and I’m trying as many ways as I can to show you why it’s illogical. I could be wrong about what AN really is, or I could be wrong about how my arguments are unsound or invalid in themselves. But you haven’t shown me otherwise. And instead like calling me a bad faith straw man builder. Over and over.

Are you really going to leave this conversation without showing me MORE CLEARLY how I am wrong?

Schop,
I’m not trying to be uncharitable. I’ve told you that anyone who wants to prevent suffering has their heart in the right place.

Answer me one question, is the fact that life is suffering a key premise to your argument or not?

Or better is the fact that some degree of suffering is entailed in every life a key premise to your argument or not?

Frankly don’t know why this is antagonizing. I’m trying to debate the logic of AN. It’s all so clear to you that you think I’m acting in bad faith because I’m not just following along the path that follows from the premise “life is suffering” but “ethics are good for people” and “preventing suffering is good ethics” so “never procreating is living ethically.”

To me it seems you are saying “there is enough suffering in every life that it is not debatable to evaluate that suffering as anything other than bad, harmful, fruitless, and unethical to inflict on another to any degree.

I’m trying to debate that. You think that’s bad faith for some reason.

It's not my job to try to convince every Harry, Dick, and Jane of their intransigent, unsound beliefs. — schopenhauer1

It’s not my job to demonstrate that the suffering that exists in life is only animating factor of ethics. That’s your job as an AN proponent. By simply avoiding the issue you sound like a flat-earther.

The earth isn’t flat. I can argue that, point.
Life is waaay more than suffering. I argued that. You don’t respond.
Preventing suffering is NOT the highest good of ethics. I argued that, you failed to respond.

If you are frustrated with me, I think it’s because you cherish suffering too much.

Life is suffering is your strawman.