Are all moral norms and values imperatives of Reason?

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

That is the matter under contention.

One thing at a time. Yes, I would argue against 4 based upon empirical evidence to the contrary. However, that is not my interest here. My interest is in confirming whether or not you've arrived at logical conclusions for the earlier claim you made...

Again...

I'm just asking you to show the argument which logically leads to the claim about all moral norms and values being prescriptions and values of God. — creativesoul

The argument presented today does not suffice. 4 assumes exactly what's in contention. Show me an argument that arrives at that claim via logical conclusion.

That was an aside based upon Bartricks' participation here. I was curious to his belief in/of God.

The substantive matter is the claim he made about all moral norms and prescriptions being morals and prescriptions of God.

Sure to both of those claims, however Bartricks has claimed that God is necessary for moral behaviour(for being good). His line of reasoning is what's under scrutiny here.

I'm not changing the goalposts. I'm correcting your misunderstanding of what I'm asking for. It's clear now, after a bit of confusion. No blame to be placed.

To be clear...

You've claimed that you arrived at your beliefs via reasoned conclusions. I'm just asking you to show the argument which logically leads to the claim about all moral norms and values being prescriptions and values of God. 4 assumes it. I'm looking for that as a conclusion, as a means to confirm your earlier claims that you've arrived at your belief in this matter via reasoned conclusions. Show me.

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is a single existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

There are two different claims you've made here that interest me. The matter of contention is exactly whether or not God is necessary for moral behaviour(being good). The second claim quoted in isolation above is what needs argued for. You made it in earlier in this thread. It is what garnered my attention.

The argument you've offered today, which is also quoted above, assumes exactly what's in question regarding the claim that moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God, where God is the single source assumed in 4.

4 assumes exactly what needs argued for. You need to provide an argument for 4, as a conclusion, rather than as a premiss.

Please reread my last post and directly address it.

Is God necessary for being good? That's the matter under contention.

If being good requires following imperatives of Reason, then claiming that all imperatives of Reason have a single source(God) as a premiss assumes exactly what needs argued for.

Do you have an argument in which 4 is not assumed, but rather is the logical conclusion?

The claim that the imperatives of Reason have a single source is the matter of contention. You assume that that is true, which is what we do with premisses. I'm questioning that premiss. Do you have an argument where that premiss is a conclusion, rather than a premiss?

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is a single existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

4 assumes what is in contention. Do you agree?

I'm asking to see the argument you refer to. Set it out for me. If not, there's no way to understand what it is that you're talking about. Of course, I do not believe in such a mind(God), and I too have employed reason(critical thinking) as a means to arrive at my denial. Bertrand Russel is one of many from whom I've learned to think about the topic(belief in the God of Abraham).

Earlier, more in line with the OP, you claimed that all moral principles are prescriptions of God, or words to that effect. I'd also like to see an argument where that is the logical conclusion, if you could be so kind to oblige.

Are you denying the current consequences and vestiges leftover from the days of American slavery?

Could you set out this argument?

From what or whom have you acquired such belief(s)? I'm curious to the source from which you learned about an omni-mind(God)?

...I have no difficulty separating belief in God from being religious as I have never been religious yet I believe in God. — Bartricks

You believe in a God that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent... the creator of all things.

Correct?

:brow:

There are some similarities it seems. The differences are there as well. Absolute presuppositions, according to Collingwood, are not propositions though. In fact, they are rather ill defined in this essay, which is another critique I've yet to have gotten into here but have noted it elsewhere.

I mentioned that in my very first post here to Bartricks. It ended with this...



The problem of evil. The Euthyphro problem. Occam's razor.

The holy trinity.

p1. All moral principles guiding human behaviour are prescriptions of God
p2. Some moral principles contradict others
C1. God's prescriptions for behaviour are self contradictory

:lol:

Interesting stuff!

:smile:

I was just taking that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion...

:wink:

Well put.

:up:

:meh:

There are already far too many such ideologues.

moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God — Bartricks

Hmmm. Something just dawned on me...

Given the breadth of differences between societal, familial, and/or cultural mores in addition to the fact that so many of them are in direct contradiction with others'...

If moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God, then God is one confused, mixed up, contradictory, incoherent motherfucker...

Ya know?

I can't think of anything that is ideology free, can you? — Tom Storm

Trees, mice, birds, inanimate objects, many directly perceptible things, celestial bodies, causality...

Off the top of my head.

You are not getting it. Which is worrying, given the point is so simple.

The claim that morality requires God (which is demonstrably true) is not equivalent to the claim that belief in God is necessary for moral behaviour. Indeed, they are so obviously not equivalent that I think anyone who regularly conflates them is a total berk. — Bartricks

I know, right. And sometimes some people act as if others are stating such things even though they haven't...

Jeesh.

Some folk, huh?

Lost interest in this discussion with you...

I'll continue my assessment, further reading and review in spite of your absence.

Be well.

I think anything I consider as something an animal believes can be put into a statement. — Coben

Is anything you consider as something an animal believes equivalent to the animal's belief, or is it best understood as an account thereof?

The latter involve presuppositions to which to the statement, or proposition, stand as answer to a question about those presuppositions. And this you do not agree with. — tim wood

Well no. As I explained in the last post...

We can take a statement out of the context in which it's uttered, and when placed into different sets of circumstances, it could stand as an answer to some question relevant to those different circumstances. So, I do not disagree that that can be done.


I'm saying that it does not follow from the fact that we can do that, that the statement extracted was originally made in answer to a question.

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

This claim is taken upon faith and faith alone. Some people have moral norms and values despite not believing in God. I personally do not believe that the God of Abraham makes much sense at all given today's knowledge. Back in the day, sure...

God did it.

If one wishes to exalt their own moral values above others' then attributing their existence to some supernatural being is one way to convince others; although I find such claims to be presupposing exactly what needs argued for.

You know what we find when we look at codified rules of behaviour?

People writing those rules based upon individual particular circumstances. I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that leads me to believe that some supernatural divine entity such as the one described in JudeoChristian or Islamic circles has somehow intervened in some set of circumstances of another.

The problem of evil. The euthyphro problem. Occam's razor.

The holy trinity.

Collingwood makes the universal claim that each and every statement ever made is made in answer to a question. In order for that to be true, each and every statement ever made must be made in answer to a queston. That is quite simply not always the case. So, proposition i.) is false as written.

I've given a perfectly adequate example which adequately serves as prima facie empirical evidence that refutes proposition i.) as written. Universal claims made about all statements that have ever been made that are later found lacking correspondence to what's happened and/or is happening are false. Proposition i.) is exactly such a claim. It is wanting, lacking, begging for truth. An inherent deficiency is shown by it's inherent inability to take proper account of things that happen on the daily.

Black swans and all...

Not all statements ever made are made in answer to a question. Each and every day some statements are made by speakers that find themselves in completely different sets of circumstances than those proposed by Mr. Collingwood(statements that are made in answer to a question). As it is written, the first proposition is falsified by our looking at actual events, as well as by our listening to accurate historical accounts.






From a slightly different angle; granting truth to see what follows...

If it is true, then there can be no statements ever made that are not made in answer to a question. The problem, of course, is that there are! Each and every statement that is made despite no question being asked at the time, serves as a clear cut prima facie example to the contrary. There are a plethora of actual events that are actual examples to the contrary. Universal claims have no exceptions. Proposition i.) does. Proposition i.) is therefore denied universal value. It's not worthy.

I do not make up the rules. I'm just using them. Some statements are made in answer to a question. Not all.





In the simplest terms...

Collingwood asserts with the utmost certainty that each and every statement ever made is made in answer to a question. However, statements are made each and every day, across the globe and in different tongues, that are not made in answer to a question. There is no question involved in such cases. In each and evry one of these cases, the circumstances relevant to the utterance do not involve the speaker answering a question.

I mean think about it...

One can most certainly state the case at hand without being asked any questions whatsoever, whether those interrogations come from within oneself or directly from others at the time of utterance.






Reflecting back upon lines of thought in your earlier response to my counterexample...

Sure, we can all take statements completely out of their context, pretend that they are in some other context, and show that - when we take statements completely out of their context - the statement is, in fact, an acceptable answer to any number of relevant proxy questions. For example, you proposed a perfectly meaningful question that "I am ready for bed" could be answer for - if it were made in a completely different context; in completely different circumstances. The problem, of course, is that "I am ready for bed" is not always made in answer to a question. Whether or not a particular statement was or is actually made in answer to a question is not determined by Collingwood. Rather, in each and every case, whether or not a statement is made in answer to a question is completely determined by whether or not it was meant by the speaker to serve as an answer that particular question at the time of utterance. I say "I am ready for bed" as a means to inform my significant other that I am ready for bed. During all such times, the statement about my physical/mental state is not made as an answer to any question at the time of utterance.

Surely you're not going to insist on telling me otherwise, are you?

:kiss:

Do you have an argument? A valid counter? Something?
— creativesoul
Sure... — tim wood

I'm all ears.

And yet another question... different once again. How I know that I am ready for bed is different than how I know "I'm ready for bed" is true or how I know what I mean when I say it.

Do you have an argument? A valid counter? Something?

It does not follow from the idea that statements can serve to answer some question relevant to them, that all statements are made in answer to a question.

I suggest you reread our exchange. The question you've asked has changed.

I'm saying that sometimes I make statements and they are not made in answer to a question. You're saying that that's false. Not much else to say here...

Religion filled in the gaps of our ignorance...

That's why.

End of story.

Is there a point, or counterargument somewhere here? I'm not interested in much else. The question you now ask, for the very first time, is irrelevant to the charge I levied here. In addition, it seems to be just plain obtuse, for obtusity's sake.

The point is that when I say that I am ready for bed, I do not always make the statement in answer to a question. Thus, prop. i.) is false, as it is written.

Now, are you going to put Collingwood's method to use here, or just keep on deflecting into irrelevancy?

When you say, "I am ready for bed," what do you mean? And to save a step, how do you know you mean it? — tim wood

When I say "I am ready for bed", I mean that I am tired at the time I say it. Perhaps it had been a long physically or mentally exhausting day, and I am ready to lay down and fall asleep for the night. I know that that's what I mean because that's what I've learned to say during such circumstances.

Relevance? — creativesoul

Sure and of course. But how do you know? — tim wood

It's very odd when one, such as yourself, readily accepts the answer given to a question by saying "Sure, of course", only to then ask the same question.

:confused:

It seems more likely that they already believe such things, rather than having "bought into his lies". — baker

Indeed. I've said - ad nauseum - that Trump is not the problem, but rather, he is a symptom of underlying problems.

Although, in this case of claiming that the election was stolen from him, that is simply not true. He is much of the problem. It doesn't matter whether or not he believes it(whether he is lying or delusional). Trump began sewing the seeds of doubt about the election results of 2020 a year and a half prior to the election. He took action at the USPS which made it much harder to successfully deliver the ballots in time, and then complained about the difficulties faced by the institution regarding that. It was well known that mail-in ballots were going to be used in far greater numbers than ever before due to the pandemic(that he denied, lied about, and basically ignored).

So much of the problems in American society boils down to the systematic deterioration of trust in elected officials that the white American electorate has been going through since the seventies(that minorites have been going through since the beginning of the country). This includes but is not limited to the ongoing lies and false promises made to the white American people from both sides of the aisle, by each and every administration since Carter. The lack of protecting innocent citizens/consumers from predatory lending practices and other forms of blatant harmful practices and purported public services(the dismantling of anti-trust laws). The disasterous effects/affects that the outsourcing of good paying American jobs has had, and that exodus itself being incentivized and rewarded, and then sold to the American people in the guise of cheaper prices and more choices. Lost incomes and destroyed livelihoods were supposed to be avoided by workforce development programs. These were already underfunded, and they are some of the first social programs to have cuts made to them. Hillary herself proposed such cuts in her last campaign.

It used to be the case that if one wanted to work hard and follow the rules, one could find a job that would allow one to live without financial worries like choosing between paying bills or having food on the table. Many of the people who just began voting again for Trump chose Trump because he said what they had been wanting to hear... "America first", which meant regular blue collar Americans' interests ought supercede the rich and powerful peoples' desire to be even richer.

This bit does not even begin to reflect the underlying systemic racism aspect... but alas, I'm tired. Minorities were cast as the cause of the problems facing white Americans. Disgusting.

When I say "I am ready for bed", I mean that I am tired at the time I say it. Perhaps it had been a long physically or mentally exhausting day, and I am ready to lay down and fall asleep for the night. I know that that's what I mean because that's what I've learned to say during such circumstances.

Relevance?

:brow: