religion and morality

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:34 pm All this is rooted in Datsun tho. Each one of you expresses his own Datsun's trajectory... the direction your Datsun has been going since you've been driving it.

The only thing you have in common is that you're each driving a Datsun, and very, very little about the Datsuns is the same.
I don't drive, nor am I driven by, Datsun.

That's my secondary point: there is no Datsun. It's a garbage notion, one used by small people to justify bein' crapsacks or to self-absolve. I'm not responsible: the motto of Datsuneers.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by promethean75 »

Well I had a Datsun once. One of those B2000 wagon models. We cut the top off with a sawzall and made it a convertible. The car was fucked beyond repair so we figgered we'd make an experiment out of it.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

What I posted...

What he makes a reference to.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 5:24 pmRight, like we haven't been going back and forth above relating our own conflicting moral philosophies in regard to "life, liberty, and property". And while we both seem to overlap in regard to the part that assumes a God, the God does not exist, I still construe your Libertarian philosophy as just another secular rendition of religion. My philosophy however situates Libertarianism itself squarely within the subjective, problematic parameters of dasein rooted out in the particular world that we live in historically, culturally and experientially.

All we can do here is to note moral and political conflicts other than abortions and bazookas. New issues in which we attempt to convey our respective points of view. I have in fact invited you to choose one yourself.

Instead, you simply ignore all of this...
And I don't doubt he will take his own -- No God? -- Libertarian philosophy to the grave. He strikes me as particularly fanatical about it. He has so much invested in it emotionally -- re the "psychology of objectivism" above -- the comfort and consolation it provides in allowing him to always be right about everything is just too much to bear if lost.

And, again, I know this because I was once an objectivist myself. First as a Christian. Then as a Marxist. It took the longest time for me to detach myself from the peace of mind that being an objectivist provides. After all, even if in any particular instance you lose this or that battle you still get to fall back on the belief that at least you were on the right side.
...and focus entirely on the largely tongue-in-cheek "save me".
henry quirk wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 6:18 pmNo, we haven't. You've been drivin' around, showin' off your Datsun, ignorin' pretty much everything I post ('cept where it allows you to hawk your wares).
All he can do is to make it all about me. Mocking my Datsun while refusing to note how my arguments regarding dasein above are not applicable to him.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 6:18 pmBottomline: I gave you what you claimed you were lookin' for, you don't like it, you turn away.
I apologize for missing it. Give it to me again. What issue did I ignore?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:35 pmmake it all about me.
Oh, you did that bubba, from the start.

Shall I go thru your posts and quote all the self-references? You and Datsun are a team.
refusing to note how my arguments regarding dasein above are not applicable to him.
That's like sayin' I refuse to note how fairy dust is exactly like dandruff.
I apologize for missing it. Give it to me again. What issue did I ignore?
henry quirk wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:47 am
henry quirk wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:36 am war (as) the natural way of things between free men and slavers
Or: you could...
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 8:16 pmdeconstruct
...me, like you said you could.
Last edited by henry quirk on Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 7:52 pm Well I had a Datsun once. One of those B2000 wagon models. We cut the top off with a sawzall and made it a convertible. The car was fucked beyond repair so we figgered we'd make an experiment out of it.
How long did it hold up?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:05 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 8:35 pmmake it all about me.
Oh, you did that bubba, from the start.

Shall I go thru your posts and quote all the self-references? You and Datsun are a team.
refusing to note how my arguments regarding dasein above are not applicable to him.
That's like sayin' I refuse to note how fairy dust is exactly like dandruff.
I figured that here at the Philosophy Now forum I would not encounter the sort of substance-less posts that are rather routine at ILP.

I figured wrong.

On the other hand...
I apologize for missing it. Give it to me again. What issue did I ignore?
henry quirk wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 10:36 am war (as) the natural way of things between free men and slavers
Let's pursue this "new issue" and see what substance is generated.

Now, down through the ages, within and between various communities, there certainly would be those who were free to choose their own moral and political values; and those who believed that, given their own moral and political values, it was perfectly okay to enslave others. Even some of America's founding fathers -- Washington and Jefferson and Madison -- owned slaves. Sometimes this was rationalized through God and the Bible, other times through attitudes about race and ethnocentric biases.

And, in America, a war was necessary to settle it once and for all.

But where is the moral/political/philosophical argument that establishes deontologically that categorically/imperatively slavers and slavery are inherently/necessarily irrational and immoral? In a No God world.

Indeed, consider a discussion about "free men" between Henry and promethean75.

From Henry's idealistic perspective, free men are the capitalists, while, from prom's point of view, the free men are the collective working class. Indeed, it's not for nothing that many Marxists call workers "wage slaves".

Yeah, they are "free" to sell their labor or not to sell their labor. But who is kidding whom? They have families to raise and bills to pay.

Only for prom75 and the Marxists, freedom here revolves around a materialist understanding of human interactions. It revolves around the means of production that are absolutely necessary for survival itself. And how, historically, that precipitated communities [political economies] with very different assessments of what it means to interact socially, politically and economically.

On the other hand, for most Libertarians [and Ayn Randroid Objectivists], they start with the assumption that if human beings sit down and "think up" the most rational political economy [philosophically or otherwise] they would "think up" capitalism.

Historically, slavery is but one manifestation of the "market economy". In fact, slavery still persist today. Only the "market" here includes human beings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... st_century

Though, again, in a No God world, what is the definitive argument that [philosophically or otherwise] establishes for all of us that slavery is inherently and necessarily irrational and immoral.

And that's before we get to the sociopaths who argue [philosophically or otherwise] that in a No God world it is perfectly reasonable to assume that morality ought to revolve around whatever sustains your own self-gratification.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:37 pm
From Henry's idealistic perspective, free men are the capitalists
Citation, please.

-----

war (as) the natural way of things between free men and slavers

What else can there be between the man who self-direct, self-relies, and is self-responsible, and the man who'd leash him like a dog? There can be no peace, no accommodation, between them. The slaver cannot coherently justify applyin' the leash to the free man (particularly since the slaver himself would never agree to bein' up on the action block). The free man can coherently defend his self-possession and by extension, the self-possession of all men, any where, any when. No, war is the only transaction possible.

-----
where is the moral/political/philosophical argument that establishes deontologically that categorically/imperatively slavers and slavery are inherently/necessarily irrational and immoral?
I done gave it to you, bubba...over and over and over.
*sociopaths who argue...it is perfectly reasonable to assume that morality ought to revolve around whatever sustains your own self-gratification.
*Moral nihilists, you mean.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

*sociopaths who argue...it is perfectly reasonable to assume that morality ought to revolve around whatever sustains your own self-gratification.
*Moral nihilists, you mean.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:59 pmI call myself a "moral nihilist"
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 3:26 pma moral nihilist can chuck the fork altogether and do whatever he or she wants to merely in order to sustain their own self-gratification.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

a war was necessary to settle it once and for all
Does it really seem to you it was settled once and for all?

When any iteration of The State can mute you, hobble you, direct you, deprive you of recourse: is slavery really off the table?

No, the war is on-goin'.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

Or democracy...
DFA6E595-F140-4E1F-828A-6BAEECDF109B.jpeg
DFA6E595-F140-4E1F-828A-6BAEECDF109B.jpeg (89.75 KiB) Viewed 833 times
...how is this not enslavement (of the minority to the majority)?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:37 pm
From Henry's idealistic perspective, free men are the capitalists
henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:54 am Citation, please.
Are you or are you not a Libertarian? Do or do not Libertarians embrace capitalists and their market political economy? Are you or are you not a political idealist?

Yeah, I'm new here so there may be things I still don't fully grasp about your thinking. Just set me straight. Only don't assume that others only get you straight when they agree with you.



Yet again, I provide all of this...

And this is all he cares to comment on.
Let's pursue this "new issue" and see what substance is generated.

Now, down through the ages, within and between various communities, there certainly would be those who were free to choose their own moral and political values; and those who believed that, given their own moral and political values, it was perfectly okay to enslave others. Even some of America's founding fathers -- Washington and Jefferson and Madison -- owned slaves. Sometimes this was rationalized through God and the Bible, other times through attitudes about race and ethnocentric biases.

And, in America, a war was necessary to settle it once and for all.

But where is the moral/political/philosophical argument that establishes deontologically that categorically/imperatively slavers and slavery are inherently/necessarily irrational and immoral? In a No God world.

Indeed, consider a discussion about "free men" between Henry and promethean75.

From Henry's idealistic perspective, free men are the capitalists, while, from prom's point of view, the free men are the collective working class. Indeed, it's not for nothing that many Marxists call workers "wage slaves".

Yeah, they are "free" to sell their labor or not to sell their labor. But who is kidding whom? They have families to raise and bills to pay.

Only for prom75 and the Marxists, freedom here revolves around a materialist understanding of human interactions. It revolves around the means of production that are absolutely necessary for survival itself. And how, historically, that precipitated communities [political economies] with very different assessments of what it means to interact socially, politically and economically.

On the other hand, for most Libertarians [and Ayn Randroid Objectivists], they start with the assumption that if human beings sit down and "think up" the most rational political economy [philosophically or otherwise] they would "think up" capitalism.

Historically, slavery is but one manifestation of the "market economy". In fact, slavery still persist today. Only the "market" here includes human beings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_i ... st_century

Though, again, in a No God world, what is the definitive argument that [philosophically or otherwise] establishes for all of us that slavery is inherently and necessarily irrational and immoral.

And that's before we get to the sociopaths who argue [philosophically or otherwise] that in a No God world it is perfectly reasonable to assume that morality ought to revolve around whatever sustains your own self-gratification.
Instead, once again, he provides us with another "general description intellectual contraption" floating up in the stratosphere of sheer didactic speculation about free men and slaves/slavers.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:54 amWhat else can there be between the man who self-direct, self-relies, and is self-responsible, and the man who'd leash him like a dog? There can be no peace, no accommodation, between them. The slaver cannot coherently justify applyin' the leash to the free man (particularly since the slaver himself would never agree to bein' up on the action block). The free man can coherently defend his self-possession and by extension, the self-possession of all men, any where, any when. No, war is the only transaction possible.
What does this have to do with the actual historical relationship between slavery and capitalism as a political economy? Irrelevant to him no doubt. Instead, he has "thought up" what it means to interact in the best of all possible worlds and that is wholly intertwined in his own idealistic assumptions.

Since the slaver refuses to think exactly like he does about the ideal "human condition" the slaver is necessarily incoherent. That's how minds like his work. Their own "ism" is all that will be tolerated. Their own moral and political dogmas period...whether the issue is abortion, bazookas or slavery.

The psychology of objectivism. It can hardly be clearer.
*sociopaths who argue...it is perfectly reasonable to assume that morality ought to revolve around whatever sustains your own self-gratification.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:54 am*Moral nihilists, you mean.
Typical. I can't mean what I do about sociopaths. I can only mean what he does...that sociopaths are the equivalent of moral nihilists.

Sure, some sociopaths may embrace moral nihilism. But not all moral nihilists are sociopaths. Ironically enough, moral nihilists of my own ilk tend more toward "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the best of all possible worlds. They recognize that points of view all up and down the political spectrum can be argued rationally. So, the best legislation is that in which everyone gets something but no one gets it all. Which is how such issues as abortion and gun control are dealt with in nations like America.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:55 am
Are you or are you not a Libertarian? Do or do not Libertarians embrace capitalists and their market political economy? Are you or are you not a political idealist?
You understand libertarianism covers a lotta ground, yeah? Anarcho-capitalism, agorism, individualist anarchism, leftist libertarian anarchism, voluntaryism, consequentialist libertarianism, deontological libertarianism, libertarian socialism, and on and on.

Some libertarians embrace capitalism (like the ancaps), others don't (like the agorists). I don't know what you mean by market political economy. Libertarians of all strains advocate for a free market (free of state and corporate control) but how to get a free market, well, that differs from strain to strain. I don't know what you mean by political idealism.

Where do I fit? I'm a natural rights libertarian (or anarchist), which, as I reckon it, is a kind of moral realism. I have no love for capitalism (state-fostered or corporatism); I favor Free Enterprise (you understand Capitalism and Free Enterprise are not synonymous, yeah?). And I'm not a member of any political party (especially not the Libertarian party).
So, the best legislation is that...
...which doesn't exist.
Since the slaver refuses to think exactly like he does about the ideal "human condition" the slaver is necessarily incoherent.
Typical nihilist: arguin' for, defendin', the slaver.
What does this have to do with the actual historical relationship between slavery and capitalism as a political economy?
Everything. Is man a commodity? Becuz he is treated as one, is it right? The nihilist sez I don't know or it depends on context. Funny, though, put the nihilist's keister up on the auction block and he'll scramble to give moral reasons why he ought not be there.
the best of all possible worlds...
...is the one where every man recognizes and respects the life, liberty, and property of every other man. There ain't no votin' into that. No amount of moderation, negotiation and compromise will bring it about. it happens when, for example, you say Henry is a schmuck, but he's done nuthin' to stop me from livin' my life, done nuthin' to infringe on my liberty, done nuthin' to deprive me of my property, so I'll leave him be. It happens when, for example, I say bubba is a pussy, but he's done nuthin' to stop me from livin' my life, done nuthin' to infringe on my liberty, done nuthin' to deprive me of my property, so I'll leave him be.
points of view all up and down the political spectrum can be argued rationally
Let's here a rational argument for slavery.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by promethean75 »

"put the nihilist's keister up on the auction block"

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no nihilist's keisters on auction blocks.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: religion and morality

Post by iambiguous »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:55 am
Are you or are you not a Libertarian? Do or do not Libertarians embrace capitalists and their market political economy? Are you or are you not a political idealist?
You understand libertarianism covers a lotta ground, yeah? Anarcho-capitalism, agorism, individualist anarchism, leftist libertarian anarchism, voluntaryism, consequentialist libertarianism, deontological libertarianism, libertarian socialism, and on and on.
Yes, that is exactly my point! Even in regard to Libertarianism itself there are many different "schools of thought". And, again, do people arrive at their own destination here because it is possible to grasp how one ought to construe Libertarianism in the most rational manner? You sit down one day, take in all of the different [often conflicting] understandings of it and then "think it through" to the most reasonable understanding? Is that what Henry did? Or is it more likely that given the life he lived, the experiences he had, the people he met, the things he read etc., he came existentially to one frame of mind rather than another?

henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmSome libertarians embrace capitalism (like the ancaps), others don't (like the agorists). I don't know what you mean by market political economy.
That revolves around how the capitalist economy produces a social and political "superstructure" that sustains the interest of those who own and operate the economy. Just as in a socialist economy the social and political superstructure would sustain the interests of the working class.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmLibertarians of all strains advocate for a free market (free of state and corporate control) but how to get a free market, well, that differs from strain to strain. I don't know what you mean by political idealism.
Well, think of it along the lines of Plato's Republic. The philosopher-king "thinks it all through" didactically and comes up with the most rational manner in which men and women should interact. Whereas materialists start with the actual empirical facts that revolve around a particular economy in a particular community at a particular time in history such that the means of production is owned and operated in a particular manner generating particular social and political relationships.

For example, those like Ayn Rand believed the reason nomadic tribes and hunters and gatherers and feudal communities weren't capitalist themselves is that there weren't any John Galts around back then to explain philosophically why capitalism is the most rational economic system.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmWhere do I fit? I'm a natural rights libertarian (or anarchist), which, as I reckon it, is a kind of moral realism. I have no love for capitalism (state-fostered or corporatism); I favor Free Enterprise (you understand Capitalism and Free Enterprise are not synonymous, yeah?). And I'm not a member of any political party (especially not the Libertarian party).
In other words, given the life you lived, the experiences you had, etc., this is what you have come to believe. And even under the Libertarian umbrella itself all you can go is to note the assumptions you start out with in order to champion your rendition of it and not another. Just as all the other "schools of thought" can do the same.

You know, given a particular set of circumstances.

Then I tap all of the Libertarians on the shoulder, suggest that "I" here is rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein, and note the assumptions that I commence with.

Only, unlike the objectivists among us, I don't hesitate to acknowledge that given "I" in the vastness of all the there, what are the odds that how I understand things here is really smack dab in the moral and political bullseye.
So, the best legislation is that...
Since the slaver refuses to think exactly like he does about the ideal "human condition" the slaver is necessarily incoherent.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmTypical nihilist: arguin' for, defendin', the slaver.
Typical objectivist, thinking that only what he defends counts.
What does this have to do with the actual historical relationship between slavery and capitalism as a political economy?
henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pmEverything. Is man a commodity? Becuz he is treated as one, is it right? The nihilist sez I don't know or it depends on context. Funny, though, put the nihilist's keister up on the auction block and he'll scramble to give moral reasons why he ought not be there.
Again, completely avoiding my point about how the slavers rationalize slavery as their own "best of all possible worlds" in getting the cotton and the slaves to the market. Some through God, some through race, some through ethnocentric biases. Some as flat-out sociopaths.

As though only what each of us as individuals think is right or wrong counts here. I think abortion is murder. I think I should own a bazooka. I think that slavery is inherently/necessarily wrong in a No God world. That settles it.

As though what each of us does come to think is right and wrong in a No God world has absolutely nothing at all to do with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

the best of all possible worlds...
Then straight back up into the general description intellectual contraption clouds he goers...
henry quirk wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:32 pm...is the one where every man recognizes and respects the life, liberty, and property of every other man. There ain't no votin' into that. No amount of moderation, negotiation and compromise will bring it about.
Now, in regard to abortion, bazookas and slaves, go ahead, dare to suggest that how you construe "life, liberty and property" is at odds with his own.

Now, true, in regard to slavery and other extreme behaviors, there tends to be a large consensus that it is irrational and immoral. But, in a No God world, is that the same as demonstrating deontologically that slavery is in fact beyond all doubt categorically and imperatively irrational and immoral.

Sure, it's possible that this is true. "I" believe that it is wrong.

But how on Earth would one go about demonstrating it definitively in the face of all the reasons those even today give for sustaining it?

The narcissists and the sociopaths can argue that in a No God world they believe that morality revolves around sustaining their own self-gratification. Enslaving other human beings is a part of that.

What then?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: religion and morality

Post by henry quirk »

that is exactly my point!
Actually, if you spent a little time thinkin' on it, you'd find it's my point.

Shall I explain it to you, again?
Is that what Henry did?
Yes, bubba: reason and conscience.
That revolves around how the capitalist economy produces a social and political "superstructure" that sustains the interest of those who own and operate the economy. Just as in a socialist economy the social and political superstructure would sustain the interests of the working class.
The State. State-Capitalism, State-Marxism: Corporatism... 👎
The narcissists and the sociopaths can argue that in a No God world they believe that morality revolves around sustaining their own self-gratification. Enslaving other human beings is a part of that.
As I say, anyone can rationalize anything. Me: I'm waitin' to hear your rational (or reasonable) argument for slavery, one wherein the slaver agrees that if John Henry can go on the auction, so to can the slaver.

You did say: points of view all up and down the political spectrum can be argued rationally, yeah?

See: that's manure.

If the slaver does not agree his keister is as fit for the auction block as John's, his argument cannot be rational or reasonable, but only a rationalization.
Post Reply