help me keep intellectual standards high

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by Jim B. » Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:19 pm

Metacrock wrote:

consequentialist requires deontological or you recursion. why is avoiding pain a desirable outcome? why ought we to care whenit does not involve us? teleological has to be based upon values just as does deontological.
I agree. Why should we be concerned with the happiness etc of those we will never know? There must be something good intrinsically about justice and benevolence, or else they argue in a circle. Consequentialism tends to resolve into some form of deontology or pure ethical egoism.

User avatar
Bettawoman
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:46 pm

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by Bettawoman » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:34 pm

Jim B. wrote:
Metacrock wrote:

consequentialist requires deontological or you recursion. why is avoiding pain a desirable outcome? why ought we to care whenit does not involve us? teleological has to be based upon values just as does deontological.
I agree. Why should we be concerned with the happiness etc of those we will never know? There must be something good intrinsically about justice and benevolence, or else they argue in a circle. Consequentialism tends to resolve into some form of deontology or pure ethical egoism.
Interesting discussion. The 'why' we should be concerned about anything that doesn't concern us. It's in us to care or not care. Some people don't or won't have concerns beyond themselves, even not their own families and friends, unless it benefits them directly.That is who they are, and it may take something catastrophic to change that. Then the complete opposite end of the spectrum there are those who care too much and look beyond their personal needs to give and give and end up being poorer than those they chose to help.

I think the real question is who we are. Where we stand in our outlook and see what benefits us, not in the monetary sense, but how we in live in this world in a balanced sense. I try to keep the balance by remembering to Love God above all else, and my neighbour as myself. NOT forgetting the last part. On a somewhat personal note: This saves me from somehow saving the world before saving myself.
Time taken to breathe is time taken for peace.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by Metacrock » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:14 pm

Jim B. wrote:
Metacrock wrote:

consequentialist requires deontological or you recursion. why is avoiding pain a desirable outcome? why ought we to care whenit does not involve us? teleological has to be based upon values just as does deontological.
I agree. Why should we be concerned with the happiness etc of those we will never know? There must be something good intrinsically about justice and benevolence, or else they argue in a circle. Consequentialism tends to resolve into some form of deontology or pure ethical egoism.
good point Jim. With pleasure over pain I know why I seek pleasure and avoid pain but should thyatq give m s generalizable ought? Schweitzer tried to find one but I think he failed.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by Metacrock » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:17 pm

Bettawoman wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
Metacrock wrote:

consequentialist requires deontological or you recursion. why is avoiding pain a desirable outcome? why ought we to care whenit does not involve us? teleological has to be based upon values just as does deontological.
I agree. Why should we be concerned with the happiness etc of those we will never know? There must be something good intrinsically about justice and benevolence, or else they argue in a circle. Consequentialism tends to resolve into some form of deontology or pure ethical egoism.
Interesting discussion. The 'why' we should be concerned about anything that doesn't concern us. It's in us to care or not care. Some people don't or won't have concerns beyond themselves, even not their own families and friends, unless it benefits them directly.That is who they are, and it may take something catastrophic to change that. Then the complete opposite end of the spectrum there are those who care too much and look beyond their personal needs to give and give and end up being poorer than those they chose to help.

I think the real question is who we are. Where we stand in our outlook and see what benefits us, not in the monetary sense, but how we in live in this world in a balanced sense. I try to keep the balance by remembering to Love God above all else, and my neighbour as myself. NOT forgetting the last part. On a somewhat personal note: This saves me from somehow saving the world before saving myself.
yes but my point is that if we base our meta ethical theories on outcome oriented ethics then we wind up deciding it by an duty or obligation oriented ought anyway.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by Jim B. » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:54 pm

Bettawoman wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
Metacrock wrote:

consequentialist requires deontological or you recursion. why is avoiding pain a desirable outcome? why ought we to care whenit does not involve us? teleological has to be based upon values just as does deontological.
I agree. Why should we be concerned with the happiness etc of those we will never know? There must be something good intrinsically about justice and benevolence, or else they argue in a circle. Consequentialism tends to resolve into some form of deontology or pure ethical egoism.
Interesting discussion. The 'why' we should be concerned about anything that doesn't concern us. It's in us to care or not care. Some people don't or won't have concerns beyond themselves, even not their own families and friends, unless it benefits them directly.That is who they are, and it may take something catastrophic to change that. Then the complete opposite end of the spectrum there are those who care too much and look beyond their personal needs to give and give and end up being poorer than those they chose to help.

I think the real question is who we are. Where we stand in our outlook and see what benefits us, not in the monetary sense, but how we in live in this world in a balanced sense. I try to keep the balance by remembering to Love God above all else, and my neighbour as myself. NOT forgetting the last part. On a somewhat personal note: This saves me from somehow saving the world before saving myself.
Thanks for those thoughts, Betta. Do you think that there are things that people ought to do (or ought not to do) even if those things are not in line with who that person happens to be?

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by Jim B. » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:59 pm

Metacrock wrote:

yes but my point is that if we base our meta ethical theories on outcome oriented ethics then we wind up deciding it by an duty or obligation oriented ought anyway.
Some would argue that these obligations, such as fairness, caring and sharing, and self-sacrifice for the good of others on the group are "pre-moral sentiments" that other species share. That may be true but that doesn't give us the normativity, the "ought."

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by Metacrock » Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:37 pm

Jim B. wrote:
Metacrock wrote:

yes but my point is that if we base our meta ethical theories on outcome oriented ethics then we wind up deciding it by an duty or obligation oriented ought anyway.
Some would argue that these obligations, such as fairness, caring and sharing, and self-sacrifice for the good of others on the group are "pre-moral sentiments" that other species share. That may be true but that doesn't give us the normativity, the "ought."
they might exhibit such behavior but that doesn't mean they deliberate about it. We sure do have deliberate to generalize and make norms.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by KR Wordgazer » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:17 pm

I was reading that original article on whether animals know right from wrong, and really, I think they are making "pro-social behavior" synonymous with "morality." I think animals can and do show pro-social behavior, but whether they think (or are capable of thinking) of it in term of abstract "right and wrong" as we do, is highly questionable.

I'm sure our sense of right and wrong is at least partially based on pro-social behavior that comes to us through evolution. For instance, I read an article not long ago saying a study had showed human infants as young a three months exhibiting positive feedback towards individuals they observed acting kindly and cooperatively towards others, and negative feedback toward those they observed acting selfishly or cruelly.

However, as you have all been discussing, pro-social behavior and moral decision-making are different things. For instance, there are times when the moral thing to do is anti-social, such as when you are in a group that has joined together to do wrong (a criminal group or a mob, for instance-- or the followers of Donald Trump's dubious ethics).

As Bettawoman pointed out so beautifully, for us as humans it often comes down to how we "balance" ourselves, or how we view ourselves in relation to the rest of the planet. Do we narrow our community to only our loved ones or our country? Do we only do good for the human race and care little for the environment or our ecosystems?

Many people possibly do live their lives mostly in terms of evolved pro-social behavior, with little thought for abstract morality. And a lot of times that works ok. But when it comes to things like interning the Japanese, or Muslim Americans, or making Jewish people wear a star-- pro-social behavior doesn't go far enough unless our sense of right and wrong tells us these people are also part of our community.

Or as the New Testament puts it, "Who is my neighbor?" Yes, even that Samaritan we grew up learning to hate.
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by met » Tue Dec 08, 2015 6:37 pm

Jim B. wrote:
Bettawoman wrote:

consequentialist requires deontological or you recursion. why is avoiding pain a desirable outcome? why ought we to care

I think the real question is who we are. Where we stand in our outlook and see what benefits us, not in the monetary sense, but how we in live in this world in a balanced sense. I try to keep the balance by remembering to Love God above all else, and my neighbour as myself. NOT forgetting the last part. On a somewhat personal note: This saves me from somehow saving the world before saving myself.
Thanks for those thoughts, Betta. Do you think that there are things that people ought to do (or ought not to do) even if those things are not in line with who that person happens to be?
[/quote]

Its a philosophical question - and one that crosses the theist/atheist boundary even - whether or not that idea "do what isn't in line with who the person happens to be" even makes any sense... :)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: help me keep intellectual standards high

Post by met » Tue Dec 08, 2015 6:43 pm

Metacrock wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
Metacrock wrote:

yes but my point is that if we base our meta ethical theories on outcome oriented ethics then we wind up deciding it by an duty or obligation oriented ought anyway.
Some would argue that these obligations, such as fairness, caring and sharing, and self-sacrifice for the good of others on the group are "pre-moral sentiments" that other species share. That may be true but that doesn't give us the normativity, the "ought."
they might exhibit such behavior but that doesn't mean they deliberate about it. We sure do have deliberate to generalize and make norms.
But Is it ultimately deliberating, generalizing and making norms that make defines behavior as 'moral?' That seems questionable, or at least insufficient, to define 'moral' behavior. Anything could be proposed as a norm, but many things would be very difficult to demonstrate to be 'moral.' To most of us, at least.....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply