Yes, and it was a revelation to me when I finally saw the film and realised what the Network had left out.

Like you I love Altman's The Long Goodbye. MASH never did it for me but I appreciate its influence.

Suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please

Original lyrics to the MASH theme (removed by network TV)

A lot of people have periods where they wish they never existed. And some hold the view that, although they are not particularly unhappy, the burden of living isn't all that fabulous, so never having been born at all might have been preferable.

But, having never existed seems to me the best version of reality. — AmadeusD

Yes - just as I was writing the above.

One could imagine a person not responding emotionally and yet able to recognize that a particular action is immoral. Why? Because most people recognize that certain actions are objectively immoral. The example that illustrates this point is the following: Imagine a person — Sam26

I guess that’s where we differ. I don’t believe any preference we have or decision we make is independent of our affective state. Reasoning is post hoc and the reasoning we find compelling or "satisfying" is shaped by how we feel about it. Emotion doesn’t always manifest as tears or laughter; rather, it forms the underlying foundation of our identity and preferences.

Note, I am not an emotivist, I might become one on further investigation but for now I think it is an interesting way of looking at morality. I do think emotion is critical to who we are.

Because most people recognize that certain actions are objectively immoral. The example that illustrates this point is the following: Imagine a person cutting off the arm of another without good reason. The harm done to the person is objective, viz., the blood loss, the arm on the ground, the screams, and the reactions of family and friends. — Sam26

An emotivist would likely respond that even though the physical harm of cutting off the arm is indisputable, the leap to labeling the act as "objectively immoral" still rests on subjective emotional responses rather than inherent moral facts. Your description of screams and reactions illustrates the observable consequences of the act, but it is our emotional reaction to these consequences—our feelings of horror and disapproval—that ultimately drives our moral judgment. In other words, while the physical harm is objective, the construction of this act as immoral is not derived from the harm itself but from the shared emotional attitudes that society cultivates in response to such violence. And humans (within time and place), seem to share fears, horrors, anxieties.

I disintinguish betweem emotions and moods. Anxiety and depression sometimes have emotions - some specific thing that I am anxious or depressed about. — Ludwig V

I don't currently make those sorts of distinctions. Mood is affect. Anxiety is affect. Enjoying music is affect.

As Wittgenstine said "The world of the happy man is quite different from the world of a sad man". — Ludwig V

Sure. But we can also say that the world of the happy man A is quite different from the happy man B.

So, for me, emotional reactions are the emotions. (You seem to be positing that the emotion is something orther than the reactions). — Ludwig V

Yes, I am suggesting that emotion shapes our identify and may be the foundational platform over which our identity (choices, decisions, preferences) is constructed.

That's an elegant summary.

Ok, but then my point still stands. One can't derive any consequent from "boo stealing!". At the very least a moral statement worthy of the name needs to apply to more than just oneself. — Banno

I agree with this.

A pathway to developing moral systems via emotivism would probably involve arguments about cooperation: a code of conduct that provides safety and predictability, because most humans feel more comfortable that way. Or something like this.

Emotions are not simply "expressions" like "ouch!" or "boo". They include a cognitive element, which is identified when we say "I am angry because..." or "I am afraid of..." "boo stealing" includes the belief that the addressee has taken possession of something that does not belong to them. — Ludwig V

Maybe, but I’m not sure. For me, emotional reactions are likely to be preconcpetual, prelinguistic experiences to which we apply post-hoc rationalizations. "I am angry because..." what follows is the post-hoc part. I've often held that human preferences are primarily directed by affective states, with rational deliberation serving as a post-hoc justification rather than the initial determinant of choice.

I don't like emotions or descriptions as an understanding of moral rules. Yet they include - are related to both. So a compatibilist answer is required. Perhaps something ike this. Moral rules encode our expectations and requirements of people's behaviour. There are facts of the matter whether certain rules do encode our expectations and requirements. But we do not respond to people following or violating those rules in the same way as we respond to "plain" - morally neutral - facts of the matter. — Ludwig V

You can be an emotivist and a compatibilist. I'm not sure what your points mean in relation to emotivism. Can you clarify this?

Whether it is true is a very different question to whether it is truth-apt. — Banno

Yes, but my point, perhaps badly worded, is that if the statement 'stealing is wrong' amounts to no more than the emotivist's "boo stealing!" This can't be truth-apt. I'm not convinced yet that the emotivist is wrong about this.

We can still argue that stealing often leads to social disharmony and suffering and if we find this discomforting the inference is obvious.

I bet you hate emotivism. :wink:

Can you show me how stealing is wrong is truth apt?
— Tom Storm

Odd.

It is true that stealing is wrong.

"Stealing is wrong" is false. — Banno

But stealing may be permissible in certain circumstances or not harmful and even do good. How do you make the journey from such a statement (which seems to reflect context, preference and emotion) into truth?

I think generally morality is rooted in the harm done, i.e., X is immoral because of the harm it causes. — Sam26

When you say "morality is about harm done," it seems to me thsi is expressing an emotional reaction to harm. How does harm become objective? I can see hwo if you accept harm as a presupposition, you can then set objective steps towards its minimization.

I don't see how a moral statement can be considered truth-apt.
— Tom Storm

And yet they are. It goes with the territory of "statement" — Banno

Can you show me how stealing is wrong is truth apt?

There could be many foundational moral statements of this sort. That's a conviction you hold to that's bedrock, you accept it as true, a given. Like a rule of chess. — Sam26

Indeed.

I don't see how a moral statement can be considered truth-apt. I believe morality is rooted in emotion (though I don't necessarily subscribe to emotivism or expressivism) and also involves intersubjective agreements - cultural values.

However, if we accept the foundational principle of preventing or minimizing suffering, it seems possible to establish objective approaches that promote this principle, even though disagreements over definitions are inevitable.

Interesting and thoughtful response.

It's an interesting question, but in my daily life it's really just a word I don't use often (I did in this thread, for obvious reasons). And that means when talking on the topic I have little at stake, but it's also never homeground. So do I have faith in... something? Maybe. Then what follows from that? — Dawnstorm

Nothing much.

For me, we are creatures of prediction and habit. If a particular framing helps us make sense of the world, we tend to stick with it. In reality, any number of fantasies could probably serve this purpose for us.

Many believers find it important to argue that secular people also live by faith, probably as a way to equalize the discussion. They do not want to be seen as irrational or as relying upon magical thinking.

Sure, but then neither is faith in all its meanings always equivalent to unquestioning obedience to some authority or else in some authoritative given - this as per the Abraham example as written.

As ↪unenlightened remarked early on, in common speech one and one's spouse are said to be faithful - full of faith - toward one another. Or as another example, having faith in humanity, or else one's fellow man. In neither of these contexts is faith taken to be about blind obedience to authority. Nor is it about mere belief.

I'll venture the notion that faith is about a certain form of trust - a trust in X that can neither be empirically nor logically evidenced. Belief (also closely associated to the notion of trust) can and most always should be justifiable in order to be maintained - as is the case in JTB. But faith eludes this possibility in practice. — javra

You raise a good point about language use which I think is one reason why we get confused about faith. We often use the term "faith" with cavalier imprecision. Sometimes all we mean is that the evidence points in a certain direction. To me, "faith" serves more as a poetic or metaphorical expression than as an accurate description of certainty. Our language abounds with figurative expressions. Just as we say we're "drowning in paperwork" or "surfing the web" to capture a broader meaning, "faith" may also be used to convey a sense of confidence rather than strictly referring to an ineffable religious experience.

There's also the matter of scale. I have a reasonable expectation that my plane won’t crash (although perhaps this expectation has diminished in the U.S. under Trump?). In contrast, using faith to justify the belief that the world was created by a magic sky wizard -the literalist's deity- operates on an entirely different level. How can these two phenomena be meaningfully compared? It’s not merely that faith is a poor analogy for reasonable expectation; it's also about the magnitude of the claim being justified. The assertion that we can know the will and actions of a world-creating entity is significantly different from an empirically grounded confidence that air travel is safe. Perhaps the scale of the claim says something about why faith is a necessary concept for some.

H'm I'm not sure what to make of the last sentence there. But I think you are missing my point. The fireman (person?) heading into a burning building has lots of equipment and training, not to mention protocols behind him. They cannot sort all that out for themselves. They need to have faith - to trust, if you prefer - that all of that is as it should be and that their project is worthwhile. You and I might want to say that they need to trust in science and reason. My point is that, so far as I can see, that trust is hard to distinguish from the trust of a believer in whatever they believe, whether it be God, or luck, or the stars. I realize that's heretical, but the question does not just go away. — Ludwig V

I said "poetically" because I believe that using the word "faith" outside of a religious context serves as a literary or evocative expression rather than a precise or useful descriptor.

So we clearly disagree on this. I understand your point, which many religious people also make and I find it unconvincing. I don't agree that faith is a synonym for commitment.

Firefighters do not rely on faith in their equipment any more than passengers rely on faith when boarding a plane. We have ample evidence to justify our confidence in both aviation and firefighting, as both fields are underpinned by proven safety records and reliable procedures. Where is this good reasoning and evidence when someone uses faith to justify faith healing ?

There is no way to asses a faith, so far as I can see, but by its fruits. Religious faiths come out with a pretty mixed record. Are we sure that science and reason (Enlightenment) comes out much better? — Ludwig V

We can evaluate faith by examining the ideas it justifies. When faith allows children to die becasue the people believe god will heal and medicine is unnecessary, we can see how poor that chocie is. I'm not advocating for reason or science here; I'm simply asserting that faith is a poor pathway to truth. When individuals claim on faith that black people are inferior—a view I've encountered among some Reformed Christians in South Africa—they offer no reasoning, merely justifying bigotry. However, if they were to use eugenics to support their views, then we could engage in a rational discussion about the matter and the efficacy of the failed science of eugenics.

My point is that faith is a poor way to arrive at truth because there is nothing it can't justify. Which is why I've generally said if you have good reasons for believing in something, you don't need faith. For me faith is best understood as the excuse people give for a belief when they don't have good reasons.

The science we have now is far beyond anything they considered. — Banno

Indeed and often demonstrates that the shoulders of those giants are not resting on good foundations and cannot bear the weight of progress.

For me using the word "faith" outside of a Christian or Islamic religious contexts is problematic.
— Tom Storm
Why so? That makes no sense to me. — Ludwig V

For reasons I have explained: that it is not properly comparable. I understand that you disagree, many do, particularly those from Christian backgrounds.

On the other hand, the people we are talking about consider their choice to be well founded and likely to succeed. That's what faith does. — Ludwig V

Disagree - faith is blind, as it says in Hebrews 11 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

The fireman has foresight: knowledge of how buildings react to fire, an understanding of possible floor plans, specialized training, experience, and equipment. If anything, he possesses reasonable confidence that his actions can succeed, and this confidence is supported by demonstrable knowledge and equipment that can be shown to others. On the other hand, no such supporting evidence exists for gods. A fireman who relies solely on faith will probably face grave consequences. If he survives and is seen to take a reckless risk (which is uncommon today), he would likely face disciplinary action

But will you allow them to make their choices? Or, better, at what point are you prepared to intervene and prevent people acting in accordance with their faith, even if you consider their choices to be poorly founded and certain to fail? — Ludwig V

Where possible, and depending on the level of risk, I would advocate for authorities to intervene. In Australia, we sometimes have the ability to do this. I don’t generally agree that we should allow people to act solely based on what they believe to be right. Religion doesn't get a free pass. However, this is a complex issue, the doorway to which leads to a labyrinth of nuanced considerations.

Why do you think that is? Obviously one strand here is that faith has been marketed by certain religious institutions as a convenient way to decide things and to shut down further discussion lest it lead people to sound reasoning. As my fundamentalist friends often say, "Don't think, don't reason, have faith."

Second, it seems to me that the soldier or fireman who chooses to risk death to save someone must have some faith on a similar level. A faith that the risk is worth it, perhaps. At some level, if there is something that we live for and that we will face death for, it may not be the same as religious faith, but it occupies the same place in our lives. Even to have no faith in anything (if that's possible) is to have a faith of a kind. Is this what the existentialists meant by commitment. — Ludwig V

People, are forever trying to fit faith into secular choices so I am bound to disagree. It's an equivocation. But I certainly understand your point. To me taking an informed risk is not faith. Mostly it's taking a punt, that the skills, training, equipment, knowledge and physical strength you have as a fireman or solider will make the activity a success, knowing full well that you could die. I don't see this functioning as faith, but I can see how poetically it can be made to fit. For me using the word "faith" outside of a Christian or Islamic religious contexts is problematic.

First, I still have to respect the choice they made. The people close to me who made that choice caused me pain and anger at the time, but still, they have the right to choose. — Ludwig V

My own personal stance is that I don't respect people's choices if I consider the choice to be poorly founded and certain to fail.

And this is the culpability of faith, when it encourages folk to cruelty. — Banno

Which is pretty much my problem with faith. There is no act so barbaric that it can't be justified by an appeal to faith. As a way of deciding action, it is very poor and entirely unaccountable.

There is something spiritual — Gregory

Certainly some people believe this. As long as they play nice with others, it doesn't matter to me.

Doesn't "phenomena" imply that it is mystical, and doesn't mystical imply miracles (miracles from the spiritual)? — Gregory

I doubt it. Is this important?

The consequence of my belief is meaning and purpose, I'm not just a cosmic coincidence awaiting a return to dust.

The issue for me isn't whether you choose faith or science, so long as you know it's a choice. — Hanover

Thank you. The notion of choice is interesting here. I tend to think that mostly we can't help the beliefs we are drawn to, much like sexual attraction.

In this case the consequence of their belief was the death of a child and 14 folk being convicted of manslaughter. — Banno

Yes, I’ve watched a few people die because they refused treatment, believing that their faith in God would heal them. One of these people, Malcolm, was a homeless man who had gangrene in his knee. He refused treatment even after his bones snapped and he was admitted to the hospital unable to walk. 'I pray and have faith,' he would tell me. He died.

You don't seem to have a burning desire to know truth. Or maybe you do. — Gregory

I know this isn’t directed at me, but what exactly is a burning desire to know the truth? About what, specifically? The meaning of life? The nature of reality? All of the above? Truth has never been a primary preoccupation of mine. I tend to think of it as consisting of provisional facts - statements that work within our current practices and inquiries but remain open to revision as our understanding and circumstances change. I don’t believe we can access some "special" reality beyond the one we experience, no matter what the anecdotes, religions, or some philosophers conclude.

Faith is subjecting a belief to its consequences. — Hanover

Nicely done. Can you provide an example?

:up: Thanks.

Masculinity has become a problem for itself, it is unclear what it is precisely, how it should be constructed. It is clear that it is a problem, but unclear what the solution is because it is caught in a contradiction. It has to reform and not reform at the same time. — Tobias

I suppose that hasn’t been my experience. In my work, I encounter criminals, former prisoners, and men from gangs, yet I see no evidence that their behavior is worsening or that attitudes are becoming more patriarchal. If anything, the men I meet today - even those who are uneducated and tough as nails - are more inclusive and open to new ideas than they were 35 years ago. That’s not to say they aren’t sometimes violent or dangerous, but I see the same tendencies in many women as well.

Isn't the "toxic masculinity" discourse often just a social media trope? There have always been toxic men, of course. And while we may be witnessing a modest, localized backlash against change, that seems like a natural part of any social transformation. In this vein, some religious groups are pushing “traditional” museum-piece lifestyles for men and women, with performative masculinity on display. But you have to expect that from those kinds of nostalgia projects.

Don’t masculine and feminine go together as the two poles of an outdated binary social conception? Aren’t they in the process of being replaced by a new binary, in which both what had been understood as masculine and what was seen as feminine are redefined? Or perhaps the binary itself is on the way to being replaced by a spectrum or non-linear plurality or fluidity? — Joshs

I suspect this is the case. But small steps, right? Certainly in my part of the world fluidity is becoming more prevalent. I suspect there are gender fundamentalists who are perhaps like the religious fundamentalists, reacting against uncomfortable ideas and a loss of certainty. My father once told me an amusing story about wearing light blue sweater in 1959 and how many men in his circle stared at him incredulously and called him a "sissy". And yet just a few years later men were wearing pink Kaftans.

Speaking of Church, I wonder if the so-called charismatic evangelical churches, with bands and lightshows and the like - are simply the result of applying these cultural forms to so-called 'religion'. That, combined with the so called 'prosperity gospel', which worships consumerist materialism as a manifestation of the holy spirit. — Wayfarer

I think certain types of Protestant, especially with their barnstorming tent extravaganzas of the early 1900's, have often put on a big show. Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis springs to mind. What Americans figured out long ago is that everything is intensified through marketing and showbiz. Hence, Trump. A Trump rally has always looked to me like Robert H. Schuller preaching in his Crystal Cathedral.

Arcane Sandwich was banned.

Can you tell me two useful things Nietzsche has contributed to your thinking and life? In simple dot points. :wink:

If we cannot be certain of anything ourselves, does that mean that certainty does not exist? — Kranky

Isn't this a performative contradiction? How can you be certain of something while claiming you can't be certain of it?

What I mean is: If I cannot be certain that I exist, can it still be said that it is certain?

There is a belief that I exist, but it might not be me thinking it. The thought of my existence could exist without me.

I think my question is:
So, if there is no certainty of my existence, can it be said that the belief of my existence is certain? — Kranky

If we cannot be certain we exist then perhaps we have bigger concerns than philosophy.

Your question isn't clear to me. Who is not certain that you don't exist - the rest of us, or yourself? How you feel about yourself has very little impact upon whether others think you exist. But naturally I don't know if you exist. For all I know you may be a fat, Russian apparatchik typing away inside some dreadful concrete brutalism in Novosibirsk.

Harris is saying that it's ok that we don't have a "conceptual definition" for morality because we just sort of know what it is. — frank

I tend to agree with this, but I would probably not agree with Harris that morality is or can be scientific.

Did I answer it in the post above you. Sorry, a belated response.

Aren't you describing consequentialism? If Harris defines morality as consequentialism, why would he give the opinion that morality doesn't have to have a clear definition in order to be rationally discussed? — frank

Coming back to this point, i guess science operates this way: we don't really have precise definitions of concepts like "life" or "consciousness," but we can still study and make progress in understanding those notions. Similarly, Harris holds a view that we can identify moral truths through reason and evidence, even if our definitions of morality remain somewhat flexible. Welbeing is a guiding principle rather than a precisely definable concept, but we can readily identify examples (through consequences) where wellbeing is absent or enhanced. For instance, I don't need to fully define health, but it is pretty clear that poisoning the water supply won't promote health.

I guess we aren't going to make any progress here. Thanks.

Yoru questions seem pretty easy to answer.

Why does the government have to favor Catholicism? — Arcane Sandwich

History and culture. Once a system of values is established it sticks. It becomes culture. Look at all the people on this site who are convinced that the religion of their family and culture is true.

Argentina is a modern Nation-State. And, as all modern Nation-States, it is not Biblical. Hence, it is not subjected to Biblical Law. — Arcane Sandwich

A state becomes Biblical if the dominant culture says it is. You have not addressed this:

In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus is recorded as saying - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. — Tom Storm

What does Argentina have to do with Catholicism specifically, or with Christianity in general? Nothing, because Argentina is not in the Bible to begin with — Arcane Sandwich

So what? Christianity is not a map, it is based on spreading the message to all nations. The goal is for the entire world to become Christian. Hence missionaries and conversions.

Argentina's policy, from the entire country to every city and town, should not be based on one bronze age myth be used by a country to enforce values on its citizens. It should be based on secular, Enlightenment thought instead. In other words, it should be based on science, not religion. — Arcane Sandwich

Well as an atheist I would largely agree with this. But a country becomes Christian by conversions and by cultural practices. It is not a geographic matter, it's built out of axioms not mountains and floodplains. I think that's the nub of our differences.

Jesus specifically asks his followers to take his message and establish his word in all nations.

Ok, but I wasn't responding to Harris or the OP, I was responding to you when you said -

I think Harris wants to have his cake and eat it too. 'It's a meaningless universe, but you shouldn't do x.'. — frank

Did I misread your comment? Sorry if I got distracted.

he example provided in the OP is relevant here: it is a fact that Argentina is not in the Bible. Is it a Biblical country, in a metaphorical sense? That would mean nothing to me, even if it were true. — Arcane Sandwich

But what does this give you? Step out the logic further? What are the implications of this fact?

I don't believe that there is such a thing as a Biblical country. It's a construct. What I do believe is that certain countries have imposed values and identities upon citizens and use a selection of facts to maintain that identity.

Up until recently, abortion was illegal in Argentina. Unlike the USA, we never had legal abortion clinics here. Women used to die during clandestine abortions. And one of the main reasons why it took so long to legalize abortion, was because of the opposition of the Catholic Church. They oppose abortion on religious, ethical and political grounds, and they make their case by way of philosophical and biblical arguments. — Arcane Sandwich

You are simply talking about a Christian nation (a construct), which like democracy or dictatorship is held in place by contingent factors. The question here is probably should one particular interpretation of one bronze age myth be used by a country to enforce values on its citizens?

I'm not an expert on Harris' model but I would have thought his project was broadly consequentialist. My point was that atheists often advocate for moral improvements despite their view that life is essentially meaningless.

Harris seems to want to reduce suffering because for him it is a fact that we can do something about this and make life less miserable. We can debate the specifics - which is what he seems to encourage people to do.

Many atheists (Rorty, Russell, Singer) still find moral imperatives grounded in human well-being, empathy/solidarity, and the impact we can have on the world around us. Even in the absence of a higher meaning, these human-centered values can be just as powerful. The point is not necessarily to seek a greater, cosmic purpose, but to improve the quality of life for ourselves and others, fostering a world where suffering is alleviated and wellness maximised. In this sense, you might say that improving the world becomes its own form of meaning; rooted in the tangible, real-world consequences of our choices and actions.

One of the consequences of the Thesis upheld in the OP is that facts should matter more than mere opinions in matters of international politics. — Arcane Sandwich

But aren't most facts tied to a value system and a narrative rather than being bias free? For instance, for those who think the Bible is myth, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. There's also the problem that human beings never seem to agree on facts. What impartial body do we appoint to determine what the facts of any given matter are?

I find it hard to care much about this. Politics simply uses religious, historical or scientific rationale as justifications for taking action. Whether it is who should be in what country, or who gets to call themselves male or female. None of this is tied to anything more substantial than the manipulation of a set of claims, to which one can easily respond with a set of counter claims. Often it's the one with the best army who "wins" the debate - not the relative merits of the discourse.

The common theme is the manipulation of justifications as excuses for action.

It matters in international politics — Arcane Sandwich

Step this out in dot points by way of an example. I am assuming you mean Israel?