What was your score again?

I would not disagree with that. If we are to take account of moral thought/belief in a manner that is amenable to evolution, it must be that way.

Our moral feelings are much more complicated. I'm sure you agree.

I'm going to agree with Banno here.

The subject/object distinction is fraught. It's a bottle because when one attempts to take account of all things by virtue of saying that they are either one or the other, they will inevitably arrive at all of the well-known unresolvable philosophical problems. The problems are a result of the framework itself.

Some things consist of both, and thus are neither. The dichotomy cannot take proper account of those things. Hence... the unresolvable issues. Failing to realize that this is what's happening, even when it is pointed out is akin to remaining inside the bottle...

Certainly. I argue for universally shared(common to everyone) thought/belief about exactly that. No one likes being harmed by another. That is thought/belief that is moral - in kind - on my view.

Earlier you mentioned the relevance of moral feelings to the source of morals.

I'd like to broach that aspect. Could you begin?

Not all pain is unethical. Nor is all pain harmful.

No thrashing.

:wink:

Just waiting for a distinction between the two kinds of harm. Ethical harm seems to be a notion which follows from one's own pre-existing moral thought/belief. That's problematic, to me at least.

The origen of morals must include both, one's adopted morality via indoctrination and one's own pre-linguistic thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour.
— creativesoul

Indeed, the indoctrination and ethical assimilation into culture, combined with one's enduring pre-linguistic assessments of the desirable, adequately set the stage for the moral agent to appear. Somewhere in this dynamic comes, what I like to call "the original sin": the knowledge of good and evil. The role of the moral agent is most decisive in the transition from ethical becoming to ethical being. Is it, then, possible to say that the "source of morals" can be included under the category of becoming, and "existing morals" under the category of being. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's possible to say whatever we want. Is it helpful? Good/evil are a couple of days too old, ya know? There are way too many religious connotations and/or theistic baggage for my tastes. Surely we can do ethics in better ways without depending upon such unwarranted belief systems setting the stage for us, can't we?

That's the whole point of setting out the universal common denominators.

Prior to ethical existence, there are many accidental factors that come into play. But once I have assumed the ethically deliberative consciousness, all meaning comes through my decisiveness. I no longer am concerned about my level of conformity to cultural norms, nor about my relation to the desirable. In ethical existence, I am no longer focused outward on the world: as it seems to be, and as it should be; rather, I turn inwardly towards myself: as I seem to be, and as I should be. — Merkwurdichliebe

Regardless of one's moral thought/belief at this time of maturity?

This includes those who had such thoughts long before language acquisition, and everyone after. The sadomasochist will still agree that they do not like being harmed by another despite being sexually aroused by some experiencing some forms of pain. They do not consider all pain as harmful, nor do I despite my distaste for painful sexual experiences.
— creativesoul

It may be that physical harm and ethical harm differ qualitatively, and while it is possible for them to correlate in some way or another, it is not necessary. They each maintain their sense independent of the other. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would readily concur. However, ethical harm would surely be a harder thing to pin down and/or find widespread agreement upon.

Perhaps it would have been better to say:
"the ethical only exists as a potentiality, until direct responsibility is assumed by a moral agent (no matter how insignificant or illusory the agent)."

Here, it is possible to conceive of the ethical as coming into being through cultural indoctrination. In becoming, the ethical is presupposed in cultural indoctrination, but until the ethical manifests itself in the live decision of moral agency, it is in a necessarily latent mode, which is quasi-ethical (or the ethical as concept), and not ethical existence proper (as moral being). — Merkwurdichliebe

Ouch.

:wink:

You know I'm going to want to reframe this, right?

What are we referring to, as precisely as possible, by 'the ethical'?

Aren't we just talking about specific kinds of thought/belief; those that give rise to moral agency?

I think I avoid the notion of potentiality and replace it with use of existential dependency and actual existence. So, instead of saying that the ethical is presupposed within cultural indoctrination, I would say that ethical thought/belief and the moral agency that emerges from it are both existentially dependent upon first having something to think about(indoctrination/inculcation of moral belief/morality).

I have no issue at all with that criterion for what counts as ethical existence. I only balk at the 'accidental' aspect, but would readily accept that too, if you're saying that the indoctrination of culture - as a thing in and of itself - emerged independently of any and all conscious deliberative purpose and prior to our awareness that it was happening.

That would place in squarely in the domain of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our account of it.
— creativesoul

This is my meaning.

I would argue that this pre-existing entity, although only quasi-ethical (due to its inability for conscious deliberation) provides the necessary environment to cultivate proper ethical existence (qua. conscious deliberation of the moral agent). — Merkwurdichliebe

I agree with the sentiment but would simplify our account. Perhaps it would be better to say that the inculcation/indoctrination does not 'provide' anything for it is not the sort of thing that is capable of providing. Rather, indoctrination/inculcation is the affect/effect that the cultural environment has upon it's individual members, and moral agency requires indoctrination/inculcation in order to have something to think about.

So, regardless of our different parsings... I think we both agree that moral agency depends upon(amongst other things) thinking about one's own mostly adopted moral belief(of which morals in the common sense are a kind). Moral agency is existentially dependent upon carefully evaluating one's own pre-existing moral foundations/morality/moral belief, and that foundation is almost entirely cultural.

It seems that simplification requires more words on my view???

:razz:

Anyway, back to what underwrites to the topic. A philosophical problem...

Likelihood... Statistics... Probability...

I am proof positive that knowing the likelihood and/or probability that X will take place requires knowing all possible influences of X taking place.

What has the study yielded that's of any good use to people who have been subjected to those sorts of lifestyles growing up(or those who've yet to have been but will be one day)?

Oh come now. Let's not commit the sin of dismissing hard work where it is due. — Wallows

Thank God for all those that assembled Witt's otherwise broken down chains of thought into a reasonable facsimile of a philosophical work, huh?

You've drawn a weird correlation between age and creativity...
— creativesoul

Well, it's just that most breakthroughs in science or philosophy come at the age-range of 20-30. Am I mistaken here? — Wallows

You think all breakthroughs are existentially dependent up creativity?

I would say that they are more dependent upon something to be broken.

Habits of thought/belief.

Guess that happens when you have all the right friends in all the right places.
— creativesoul

I suppose so. — Wallows

No need to suppose my friend. Pick yourself up a copy of the letters to Cambridge if you really want to know Wittgenstein. His personal correspondence is vital to knowing him. Guess who picked up all of Witt's broken disparate pieces for him?

I'll pass on having kids with you. You look like the crazy guy who gets all sorts of credit even though he could not get his own thoughts together. Guess that happens when you have all the right friends in all the right places.

You've drawn a weird correlation between age and creativity...

So... with a nine, what kind of person aught I be according to the statistics? What sort of maladjustments aught I have, if I were someone whose childhood traumas actually manifested into the aforementioned maladjustments?

:yikes:

Just read the wiki article...

Ah well, you can't please everyone. I suppose this is just one more example of my having fallen through the cracks. I suppose I like being an exception to the rule. That's my normal.

Although, I've certainly been a man-whore at times in my life. It's easy enough to do, and it's sooo much fun! I still smoke cigarettes. I drink maybe once or twice a year. Thoughts of suicide? Not even once. Drug abuse? Nope. Experimented with all sorts of things. Not my cup of tea. I like sobriety much better. Thoughts are clear and consistent that way. Depression? I don't think so. Lazy? Surely I could do more. Given my history, I'm good with where I am. Some who know me well and are not from that background have said that they are quite amazed that I am who I am.

I certainly do not take credit for not having fallen into worse conditions. Some obviously do. That's too bad. But, it's not like I had to work at it. My dad(one of 'em anyway) used to say "I'd rather be lucky than good!" I just do what I want to do, and try to make sure that what I want to do is what I ought be doing...

That all depends... what do you look like?

:blush:

Kidding.

No. My kids are grown. They have kids and lives of their own.

Comes with plenty of practice I suppose.

:rofl:

Seriously though...

My score is a nine. The irony, I suppose, is that I know that I am loved and have always known it despite those people sometimes having a really odd way of showing/expressing it.

:lol: 9 :lol:

Hmmm...

I thought all that shit was normal.

Belief is far more broad than belief statements about God. However, in the context of belief in God, your position seems fine to me.

Have fun with that!

I'm not asking you if you 'do believing' whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm asking you simple questions with yes/no answers. Why not just answer?

Okay?

Evidence is measured in terms of relevancy and adequacy/sufficiency. The evidence for Washington's existence far exceeds the evidence for God's in both measures.

When you make a statement about something, do you believe that what you say is true?

You know that you understand these words, and you do not believe that you understand these words.

To answer the OP...

Some ask for evidence of God's existence because some require evidence to believe that anything exists.

Discussion requires more than just talking at someone like a broken record. — S

Nuh-uh!

So, you know that but you do not believe that?

I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

Do you believe that?

I will give what I think is compelling evidence for a divine consciousness.

(1) Human beings and other animals are conscious and self-aware.
(2) Human beings and other conscious animals are made of matter.
(3) Matter collected and organized itself somehow in order to become conscious.
(4) Either matter collected and organized itself into conscious beings purely by accident or by design.
(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance.
(6) Thus, it is highly likely that matter was guided by some conscious being to form into conscious animals.

(7) I call this guiding consciousness "God". — Noah Te Stroete

You could have stopped at 3. Everything after 3 contradicts 3.

My understanding is that at least part of the point is that it is not against islam, only against certain extremist interpretations of islam such as wahabi. So it sends a message that it is possible to be a good muslim without being a joy-killing wahabi. — andrewk

That's what I took it to mean. The point would be much better made by muslim women. They could have an entire issue of muslim women posing for the cameras, if there are muslim women who agree.

Is that woman a muslim?

Banning all public religious representations would increase the amount of hatred and violence coming from within the religious community.
— creativesoul

That is not the case where religions have banned atheism nor where Muslim countries have banned the apparel the O.P. speaks about.

Is that your opinion/speculation or can you cite something with research and not just opinion? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

We're not talking about cases whether one religion bans another's representation. We're not talking about cases where atheism is banned. We're considering whether or not a ban on all religious representation would increase violence.

Clearly violence against religions come almost entirely from other religions.

You need research to reasonably conclude that a ban on all religious representation would increase violence within religious communities? What planet do you live on?

No one else gives a fuck.

I'm reminded of an American actor, cannot remember whom, that 'dressed up' as a black man for Halloween by painting his exposed body parts.

Yeah, I can see how some could be offended by that. Even more so by the pic in SI if that woman is not muslim. If that's the case, it looks more like exploitation rather than respectful representation. If that sort of posing is against muslim women's religion, and that lady is not muslim, then it's definitely not ok.

It's like pictures of Jesus and Mary Magdalene making out.

I'm pretty damned liberal.

Here's a question...

Is that lady a muslim?

Carefully considering one's own adopted moral foundation requires thinking about one's own pre-existing thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. That would include considerations in light of not only the adopted moral basis of inculcation/indoctrination but also those moral thought/belief that everyone whose been harmed has. This includes those who had such thoughts long before language acquisition, and everyone after. The sadomasochist will still agree that they do not like being harmed by another despite being sexually aroused by some experiencing some forms of pain. They do not consider all pain as harmful, nor do I despite my distaste for painful sexual experiences.

No one likes being harmed by another.

The origen of morals must include all three, one's adopted morality via indoctrination, one's own reflective considerations of that, and one's own pre-linguistic thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. Morals, however aren't formed/held until the indoctrination begins.

I would say that the ethical doesn't actually exist until responsibility is assumed by a deciding agent (no matter how insignificant or illusory). But it is not the responsibility that places one into ethical existence, rather it is the acceptance of the role as the deciding agent that places one there. — Merkwurdichliebe

On a critical reading, there's something a bit confusing here for me though.

If A does not exist until B and B is insufficient for A then A is existentially dependent upon more than just B. If C results in A and C is not existentially dependent upon B then A is existentially dependent upon C and we've arrived at self contradiction with the first premiss. Either the first premiss is false, or there's an equivocation of "ethical" such that "the ethical doesn't actually exist" is not talking about ethical existence.

One can accept the role as a deciding agent without accepting responsibility. One can also accept responsibility without accepting they had a choice in what to do.

So, on second thought, despite the initial 'feeling' of agreement without issue regarding the criterion for ethical existence, I suppose there is a bit of an issue for me. All the rest concerning indoctrination existing in it's entirety prior to our awareness and/or accounts of it still stands strong for me though...

That's a nice piece of writing. It's a bit too flowery for my disciplinary taste/preference in philosophy(critical and analytic), but the sheer aesthetic value is very much appreciated. The affects of my reading it were visceral.

Two ways of arguing much the same thing.

I have no issue at all with that criterion for what counts as ethical existence. I only balk at the 'accidental' aspect, but would readily accept that too, if you're saying that the indoctrination of culture upon the individual - as a thing in and of itself - emerged independently of and/or without deliberative purpose. If we're arguing that it began prior to our awareness that it was happening, and is accidental in that specific sense...

That would place it squarely in the domain of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our account of it.

Yes.

You are correct in this point. Just consider me thorough. I just want to be sure we have firmly arrived into ethical existence before we finally determine that we have exhausted all the relevant potential sources of moraliy. — Merkwurdichliebe

Oh.

:wink:

When you put it like that, you guide our thoughts about "ethical existence" through 'the realm' of logical possibility. Perhaps "domain" is more apt and/or understandable as it usually applies to the subject of discourse.

We could imagine all sorts of potential sources of morality, and as long as we are sensible in terminological use and consistent throughout we could arrive at all sorts of answers to the question. In this way, we could arrive at different 'possible' sources of morals. That would be exhaustive of potential sources if we're using the term "potential" as a synonym for logically possible.

However, I do not find logical possibility alone very convincing... not at all. So, I hope that that is not the case here.

However, if you mean to direct our attention to the importance that conscious deliberation of one's own (mostly)adopted worldview(including the inculcation aspect of morals) has upon one's character, then you'll receive nothing but complete and total agreement from me.

I was going to ask about "ethical existence" but you've answered while I was still formulating this reply. That's an interesting position to put forth. I'm going to carefully consider what I think it means prior to saying more.

:smile: