An existential ethics

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 4:59 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 3:16 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:02 pm I exist and there is no manual for how to exist.
I understand, Gary, if you say, "I know of no manual." I don't know how one would know, in advance of all searching, "There is no manual."

Let us set aside the question of whether there is a written revelation of such things, one we might metaphorically term a "manual." Let us use "manual," for the moment, merely metaphorically, to mean "pre-existing set of values," or something like that. Shall we?

Okay, then let's ask this: if there is no such "manual," (i.e. no pre-existing set of values) then what critierial, what set of axioms, will we use in order to "find our way" existentially thorough life? Will not all choices of action, and all courses, look to us equally uncertain of value? Will not all options simply seem either strategically useful to us, on the one hand, or not strategically useful, on the other? But for what would we be "strategizing," then, since no value-criteria are available for us to know what is "strategic" either?

Existentially, what are we trying to become? What should we try to become? How can we even "find a way" in such an existential vacuum? How do we know when we've gotten off track in some way -- indeed, how would we know we aren't already off track? Where is the track? How shall we find it?

Listen to Nietzsche on this: "What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?"

So how does one "existentially" navigate the infinite empty space in all directions? What criteria do we use, as we "feel our way," so to speak, like blind men in an existential vacuum, a universe with no "manual for how to exist"?
I don't know. I guess that's the biggest question that exists in the realm of ethics.
An honest answer. And yes, Moral Philosophy, or Ethics, has no bigger question than that.
How do sinners navigate a world without atoning for all of our sins?
By first understanding that atonement has already been made on your behalf, Gary, and by accepting that for your own.
I mean, sin (such as breaking most of the 10 Commandments) is so deeply rooted in my being that I don't know how to atone for it. I mean, I'd like to avoid going to hell but how do I atone for all my sins?
Well, the first step is exactly where you are right now: realizing you can't do it. Salvation is not saving yourself. If you could do that, you would surely have done it immediately, would you not? And if you could what need would you ever have of God's help?

Like a swimmer who's in trouble in deep water, the first thing you have to realize is that you're drowning. It's only then that you'll look about and cry out for the rescue you need. If you continue to believe you can make it yourself, you'll eventually just drown, won't you?
They say, walk the path of Christ.
Then "they" are not telling you enough.

If you actually found it possible for you to "walk the path of Christ," wouldn't you have done that already? Or wouldn't you just redouble your efforts now, and start doing it from here on in? But the truth "path of Christ" was never, never to be out of sympathy with His Father. And that is a thing that no human being, no matter how sincere and well-intended, can do.

Again, it is indeed the right thing to do; but you must first realize you'll never do it alone, and cry out for the help God freely offers. That's salvation.
Christ was murdered (pretty heinously too). Will "walking the path of Christ" entail being murdered?
If you want to walk with Christ, expect that there will be challenges. Jesus Himself spoke of it in terms of association with His own death. He said, "If any man would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow me." (Luke 9:23) What He's saying is that one must first utterly despair of one's own goodness and one's own efforts; in that way, believing in Christ is like a sort of painful "death," a "crucifixion," even, because it puts to death our pride and our desire to do it our own way.

And salvation comes with a cost. It means that we give up all our selfishness and all our worldly ambition, and make instead our ambition to know Christ and become like Him. It means the end of old Gary, and a new Gary to be born...born again, born from above, born of God. Do you see?
I'd love to think that God will protect me if I walk the path of Christ,

What is the danger from which you desire "protection, " Gary? That God will protect you from that which is truly to be feared is certain. But Christ Himself asked the most important question: "For what good will it do a person if he gains the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a person give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26)

There are losses and dangers that are not worth fearing, and there are losses and dangers that are definitely worth fearing. It is the dangers that are definitely worth fearing from which God promises His protection.
...but I don't know if I believe that Christ is God or rather that God incarnated himself in Christ or whatever. What if Christ was not God? Then what? I mean, for what little I know, Christ might have been God incarnate. But, I don't KNOW if he was (in "reality") or not. I don't even know what reality is aside from what I actually see, hear, smell and touch, or taste. And I don't know what science is other than descendants of monkeys playing with dangerous or volatile substances.
This is why the Word says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God; for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He is the Rewarder of those who seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)

Faith, Gary. That's what He requires of you. Faith is trust, reliance, belief, investment of self. What we have to decide is whether or not we're going to believe God, and invest all that we are in Him...or not.

We all trust something. Some trust in science. Some people trust the word of other people. Some trust government. Some trust their own cynicism or cleverness. Some trust in their own intrinsic goodness. And some trust God.

So, Gary...what are you going to trust?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:06 pm
Age wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:53 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:02 pm I exist and there is no manual for how to exist.
None is EVER needed for how to exist.
Why are you so sure no manual is ever needed for how to exist?
Because Existence, Itself, exists eternally, VERY WELL, without a "manual", and because human beings have existed for millions of years without ANY so-called "manual" as well.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:06 pm What if I do something wrong (even unforgivable) without my foreknowledge that it was wrong (or unforgivable)?
If that is what you do, then that is what you do.

Also, what do you mean, "What if" you do something wrong? You are continually doing something wrong. And, by the way, there is NOTHING that is 'unforgivable'
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:06 pm It's not my desire to do wrong or unforgivable things.
Well we ALL hope that it is NOT your desire to do wrong.

But, because we ALL FULLY KNOW and FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY you do do wrong, you are ALWAYS being forgiven.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: An existential ethics

Post by promethean75 »

"Faith, Gary. That's what He requires of you. Faith is trust, reliance, belief, investment of self. What we have to decide is whether or not we're going to believe God, and invest all that we are in Him...or not."

There's a caveat tho, Gary. Think long and hard about this before you choose, young Jedi.

There is an equally formidable theory in philosophy that has existed for thousands of years that we all know as the general idea of 'reincarnation'. The basic idea is the same; that there will be a repetition of the identical or similar life that we are living now. Differences depend on variations of the particular theory. We hear a lot about 'karma', or that one could come back as a cow or something... or that we keep coming back until we 'get it right', whatever that means.

Now toss those particulars for a minute and think about Nietzsche's theory of the eternal recurrence. The idea is that first, there is only the material universe... this monster of energy without reason or purpose, that will always exist. Now consider that you are a particular physical construct of this material universe. Next, imagine that if there is a finite amount of energy - meaning there is no new energy being introduced into the system from without - and time is eternal, then at some point in the future, a previous material arrangement of that finite energy would have to be repeated again, and again. One of those repetitious arrangements would be you, just like this solar system, and this chair, and this new York jets game, and this stock market crash, and this birthday party, etc.

Suppose also that there is no reason or ultimate goal to any of this. That it just keeps running like an indifferent machine that can never stop. And every time that construct 'you' happens again - and let's even grant some quantum wiggle room and say each life isn't identical to the last - you go through all the intellectual struggling to understand what existence is about, and what to do in life.

Now I ask you, if, indeed, there is no purpose to any of it, what would be the most logical thing to do in each life if not to enjoy, once again, the unadulterated acquisition of power and pleasure? Remember, there is no 'other side' here... no 'god' in heaven waiting for you... no transcendental migration of the 'soul' to some other immaterial dimension. Just the monster machine of energy turning out combinations and recombinations of matter over and over again.

Furthermore, wouldn't 'religion' not only be a load of childish metaphysical nonsense, but also the greatest of sacrifices of the liberty of the body and intellect? A veritable straight-jacket that binds and chains you every time you exist?

Ax yourself how many times you've hesitated because you thought 'god' was watching you, or because you thought it was 'wrong' to exercise your power and freedom in some way.

Wouldn't belief in 'god' be the greatest curse laid upon the eternal recurrence? Indeed it would, Gary. Indeed it would.

And I'm giving you a break here because I could venture a pretty solid fuckin argument that one shouldn't worship 'god' even if he did exist, on account of how badly this 'god' has done.

Now all this is philosophy, not science, and I claim no definitive proof that such an eternal recurrence is true. That's not my point. My point is that, given the preponderance of available evidence - being that it's philosophical and conceptual by nature and nothing of the empirical variety - it's just as reasonable to believe in an ER as it is to believe in a 'god', no?

What is at stake is the wager, Gary, and the gravity of this wager, this decision, is tremendous.

If you are wrong, and a 'god' does not exist, you may very well be the same miserable, timid little creature each and every time you exist, fated to grovel for eternity. But if I'm wrong, a 'god' exists, and the ER is not true, well fuck him anyway, because I'd never worship an evil, incompetent moron of such monolithic proportions.

The time to choose is now, young Jedi. Go with 'god' and lose your liberty and freedom for eternity... but choose the dark side and come with me, and a 'god' you shall become, hrmmmm?

*extends hand*
seeds
Posts: 2147
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: An existential ethics

Post by seeds »

promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:07 pm "...think about Nietzsche's theory of the eternal recurrence..."
In the movie "Hannah and Her Sisters," Woody Allen was repulsed by the thought of Nietzsche's theory of eternal recurrence because it meant that he would have to sit through the "Ice Capades" again. :D

If you haven't seen it, then here's a short (5.5 min) clip from the movie where Woody mentions the above while in the throes of an existential crisis...https://youtu.be/90Z98ZlvpPU

Now, in regards to this...
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:07 pm Wouldn't belief in 'god' be the greatest curse laid upon the eternal recurrence? Indeed it would, Gary. Indeed it would.

And I'm giving you a break here because I could venture a pretty solid fuckin argument that one shouldn't worship 'god' even if he did exist, on account of how badly this 'god' has done.
I suggest that it's not so much a situation of how badly God has done, but more of how badly humans have done.

I mean, how many different ways do humans need some variation of the "Golden Rule" presented to them before it finally sinks in?
_______
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:02 am
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:07 pm "...think about Nietzsche's theory of the eternal recurrence..."
In the movie "Hannah and Her Sisters," Woody Allen was repulsed by the thought of Nietzsche's theory of eternal recurrence because it meant that he would have to sit through the "Ice Capades" again. :D

If you haven't seen it, then here's a short (5.5 min) clip from the movie where Woody mentions the above while in the throes of an existential crisis...https://youtu.be/90Z98ZlvpPU

Now, in regards to this...
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:07 pm Wouldn't belief in 'god' be the greatest curse laid upon the eternal recurrence? Indeed it would, Gary. Indeed it would.

And I'm giving you a break here because I could venture a pretty solid fuckin argument that one shouldn't worship 'god' even if he did exist, on account of how badly this 'god' has done.
I suggest that it's not so much a situation of how badly God has done, but more of how badly humans have done.

I mean, how many different ways do humans need some variation of the "Golden Rule" presented to them before it finally sinks in?
_______
The "golden rule" in its current state, when this iss being written, obviously, does NOT work, and the reason for this is also obvious.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: An existential ethics

Post by promethean75 »

"I suggest that it's not so much a situation of how badly God has done, but more of how badly humans have done."

It can't work like that, due to a certain line of reasoning I shall now demonstrate to you.

If we suppose that the universe was created by something we will call 'god', we have to suspect that this 'god' created the universe a certain way rather than some other way... and that he set what we call the 'laws of nature' to work a certain way. That is to say he designed the universe... what is in it and what this stuff does.

Now skip a bunch of shit and fast-forward to man. Man, being part of this universe, is just as subject to these 'laws of nature' as anything else. However, one thing this 'god' couldn't have made a part of man's nature, is 'freewill'... for two reasons; first, man would have to be exempt from the 'laws of nature' in order to be causally independent of them. Second, this 'god' would know in advance, anything that was to happen in this universe by virtue of him knowing what the 'laws of nature' are, as well as how they will work. So while to man - who cannot know like 'god' what the future will be like - it seems as if he is acting of his own 'freewill', independently of causality, actually he isn't, because 'god' already knows what will happen. This is both a consequence of 'god's' omnipotence and omniscience. On the other hand, if 'god' has neither of these attributes, he ain't really 'god'.

Also, if 'god' has these attributes, it means it was perfectly possible for 'god' to skip the whole test, snap his fingers, and put everyone in heaven from the start.

Now you say 'but god didn't do this because he wanted people to choose to be by his side, or else he'd have created only automatons, and who wants to hang out with automatons.'

Ah, but 'freewill' is logically and physically impossible for the above reasons... so he gets automatons in any case.

See, freewill is impossible anyway... but it's especially impossible if such a 'god' exists.

That being the case, everything that transpires in this universe is his fault. The existence of the devil, evil, natural disasters, disease, famine, agonizing death, human conflict and violence in general.

The bum literally botched the whole project from the beginning.

Now I propose instead a spinozean non-anthropomorphic conception of 'god' to avoid all this embarrassing nonsense.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

a deist's retort

Post by henry quirk »

If we suppose that the universe was created by something we will call 'god', we have to suspect that this 'god' created the universe a certain way rather than some other way... and that he set what we call the 'laws of nature' to work a certain way. That is to say he designed the universe... what is in it and what this stuff does.

This what I suppose, yes.

Man, being part of this universe, is just as subject to these 'laws of nature' as anything else. However, one thing this 'god' couldn't have made a part of man's nature, is 'freewill'

Libertarian agent causation sez man is a free will: that what he does now is not necessarily rooted in what happened then; that man can start, end, and bend causal chains and isn't merely mired in them. Even casual self-interrogation supports this.

for two reasons; first, man would have to be exempt from the 'laws of nature' in order to be causally independent of them.

He is, in matters of intent and choice.

Second, this 'god' would know in advance, anything that was to happen in this universe by virtue of him knowing what the 'laws of nature' are, as well as how they will work.

Yes. And mebbe that's why He built a universe with free wills: to experience surprise. The free will is, from His perspective, the only wildcard.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 10:47 pm Now I propose instead a spinozean non-anthropomorphic conception of 'god' to avoid all this embarrassing nonsense.
I agree the spinozean non-anthropomorphic conception of 'god' will avoid all the embarrassing nonsense associated with a personal theistic God.

However note Spinoza associated his God with 'Substance', i.e.
  • Spinoza defines "substance" as follows:
    By substance I understand what-is-in-itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed. (E1D3)[5]
    Wiki
Note the critiques;
  • In 1785, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi published a condemnation of Spinoza's pantheism, after Gotthold Ephraim Lessing was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a "Spinozist", which was the equivalent in his time of being called a heretic.
    Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance.

    The entire issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time, which Immanuel Kant rejected, as he thought that attempts to conceive of transcendent reality would lead to antinomies (statements that could be proven both right and wrong) in thought.
    Wiki
Kant rejected that the idea that Substance is what-is-in-itself with his argument against the thing-in-itself [ding an sich] where if reified constitutionally is an illusion.

The bottom line with the idea of God of any sort is purely a psychological issue and if resolved will dissolve any necessary idea of God as in Buddhism and other non-theistic philosophies, so will avoid all the embarrassing nonsense associated with a God of any kind.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

Dubious wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:29 pm An adult as compared to a child would normally know it was wrong before it was done to him.
And, the very opposite could also be argued.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: An existential ethics

Post by promethean75 »

"Yes. And mebbe that's why He built a universe with free wills: to experience surprise. The free will is, from His perspective, the only wildcard."

Pro75: yo Henry, can I ax you sumthin?

Henry: mebbe, depends on what it is.

Pro75: please don't do that. I hate when people do that... when people say 'it depends on what the question is'. Just say 'yes' or 'no'. If I ax the question, and you then discover it's a question you don't want to answer, then that's cool. But you can't base your decision to give me permission to ax the question on the suspicion that you might not want to answer it. You just say 'yes' or 'no', got it? Now let's try this again. Yo Henry, can I ax you a question?

Henry: mebbe, it depends on whether or not you are able.

Pro75: don't be a smart-ass, Henry. Now listen. You agree that god is omniscient or 'all-knowing', yes? That if something can be known, god would most certainly know it.

Henry: yes, I agree with that.

Pro75: and you agree that god cannot be mistaken about what he knows... that he can't be wrong or in error about what he knows, or have inaccurate knowledge, or have incomplete knowledge, right?

Henry: yes, that is so.

Pro75: okay. Let's say that god knows you will lose an argument with me ten minutes from now.

Henry: never happen.

Pro75: dude this is a thought experiment. Now do you agree that this is possible or not?

Henry: sure, it's possible. If I were to lose an argument in ten minutes (which I wouldn't), and god knows everything, and god can't be mistaken about what he knows, then god would know I was about to lose an argument in ten minutes.

Pro75: okay now here it comes, Henry: if god knows what is about to happen, and can't be mistaken about what he knows, then you are not free to win that argument in ten minutes. If you were, it would mean god was mistaken about what he thought he knew... and we just established that that is impossible.

Henry: jeez *scratches head*

Pro75: of course you can't know you'll lose that argument in ten minutes, and this is part of what creates the illusion of freewill. But clearly you don't have it - assuming here that you have the intelligence to win the argument provided you were given an opportunity to have it, of course - because if you did, it would mean god might be wrong about what he knew would happen in ten minutes.

Henry: jeez *scratches head again*

Pro75: see what kind of logical problems the belief in an anthropomorphic 'god' that is omnipotent and omniscient, creates? Member when I said freewill is especially impossible if such a 'god' existed?

Henry: what do you mean 'especially' impossible? Sumthin is either impossible or not, and not by degrees, asshole.

Pro75: bro, I just said that for effect. A rhetorical play. Relax. And don't be mad at me or god because you have no freewill.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: An existential ethics

Post by henry quirk »

You agree that god is omniscient or 'all-knowing', yes?

Nope, not when it comes to free will.

As I say: mebbe that's why He built a universe with free wills: to experience surprise. The free will is, from His perspective, the only wildcard.

The theist might be flummoxed by you, but I'm a deist: you'll have to adapt.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: An existential ethics

Post by promethean75 »

No Henry. NO.

The deistic god, being another variation of an anthropomorphic god, possesses the same attributes of omniscience and omnipotence as any other monotheistic or polytheistic god... except the deistic god doesn't give a shit, doesn't interact, intervene or interfere with, the system that he designed, once he turns it on.

Still no freewill.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: An existential ethics

Post by henry quirk »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:27 pm No Henry. NO.

The deistic god, being another variation of an anthropomorphic god, possesses the same attributes of omniscience and omnipotence as any other monotheistic or polytheistic god... except the deistic god doesn't give a shit, doesn't interact, intervene or interfere with, the system that he designed, once he turns it on.

Still no freewill.
No, pro: all deism asserts is the Creator created and does not directly involve Himself in the creation.

Ain't nuthin' in there about omni-anything.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: An existential ethics

Post by promethean75 »

See? Marx was right. God is alienated from the products of his own labor. And that's one reason he believes in god.

"Religion is the opiate of the deistic gods" - The Beard
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

'marx' ain't a comeback

Post by henry quirk »

promethean75 » Thu Dec 23, 2021 7:07 am: you will lose an argument with me ten minutes from now.

henry quirk » Thu Dec 23, 2021 7:40 am: 🤣
Post Reply