Philosophy Now Forum

a ≠ b

Walker wrote:a ≠ b

When you figure this out:

A's goodness ≠ B's goodness

; You'll have the sense of the thread.

Religion has its many faces, four as categorised. Two of these may be considered eccentric or atypical. Extreme religious sects or cults have existed that are self destructive, if not of society generally.
Mainline religions tends to be more socially responsible or they would not have existed and adapted over centuries.
There is of course a loosely anarchistic wing, in the image of hermits divorced from civilization.
But mainline religion has two faces which switch about alarmingly. There is the authoritarian face that once dominated, with the Church [for instance] ruling peoples' lives in considerable detail through its courts. The auto-da-fe. Obeying authority is expressed as obeying God.
Finally the altruistic face of religion, which is often confused by authority. Such as when a person does charitable work in obedience to the bishop or pope. This face is best expressed as the followers of Jesus of Nazareth following his example, not in obedience, but in the fact of being altruistic. Unfortunately this is often interpreted as a term synonymous with, nice.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:a ≠ b

When you figure this out:

A's goodness ≠ B's goodness

; You'll have the sense of the thread.

Off on your own made-up tangent again. To follow your lead into regression, a ≠ b references the distinction between the words as and what, which references the contrast as an aid in comprehending the Golden Rule. creativesoul expressed difficulty in understanding the principle, thus your commentary is immaterial to the quote, though obviously it bears a relationship to something or other inane rattling around up in the attic. We encourage your perseverance into relevance.

A's goodness ≠ B's goodness

This is merely an objective notation of subjective morality, not an objective notation of objective morality. You're off on another topic.

Walker wrote:a ≠ b

That's not an argument. It does not follow from that that "Do unto others what you would have done to you" does not suffer the same mistaken(false) presupposition that "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" does.

Sigh...

creativesoul wrote:

Walker wrote:a ≠ b

That's not an argument. It does not follow from that that "Do unto others what you would have done to you" does not suffer the same mistaken(false) presupposition that "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" does.

Sigh...

Wrong. Different words result in different meanings.

RWStanding wrote:Religion has its many faces, four as categorised. Two of these may be considered eccentric or atypical. Extreme religious sects or cults have existed that are self destructive, if not of society generally.
Mainline religions tends to be more socially responsible or they would not have existed and adapted over centuries.
There is of course a loosely anarchistic wing, in the image of hermits divorced from civilization.
But mainline religion has two faces which switch about alarmingly. There is the authoritarian face that once dominated, with the Church [for instance] ruling peoples' lives in considerable detail through its courts. The auto-da-fe. Obeying authority is expressed as obeying God.
Finally the altruistic face of religion, which is often confused by authority. Such as when a person does charitable work in obedience to the bishop or pope. This face is best expressed as the followers of Jesus of Nazareth following his example, not in obedience, but in the fact of being altruistic. Unfortunately this is often interpreted as a term synonymous with, nice.

.. and so? Your point?

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:a ≠ b

When you figure this out:

A's goodness ≠ B's goodness

; You'll have the sense of the thread.

Off on your own made-up tangent again. To follow your lead into regression, a ≠ b references the distinction between the words as and what, which references the contrast as an aid in comprehending the Golden Rule. creativesoul expressed difficulty in understanding the principle, thus your commentary is immaterial to the quote, though obviously it bears a relationship to something or other inane rattling around up in the attic. We encourage your perseverance into relevance.

A's goodness ≠ B's goodness

This is merely an objective notation of subjective morality, not an objective notation of objective morality. You're off on another topic.

There are no objective notions of objective morality, as objective morality is that upon which the subject may agree.
This is exactly the topic.

Walker wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Walker wrote:a ≠ b

That's not an argument. It does not follow from that that "Do unto others what you would have done to you" does not suffer the same mistaken(false) presupposition that "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" does.

Sigh...

Wrong. Different words result in different meanings.

No. What I wrote was true, and what you've now added is utterly irrelevant. That wasn't an argument, and I agree that different words do result in different meanings. It's irrelevant because both meanings presuppose that everyone likes being treated the same way.

creativesoul wrote:

Walker wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
That's not an argument. It does not follow from that that "Do unto others what you would have done to you" does not suffer the same mistaken(false) presupposition that "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" does.

Sigh...

Wrong. Different words result in different meanings.

No. What I wrote was true, and what you've now added is utterly irrelevant..

No it wasn't.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Walker wrote: Wrong. Different words result in different meanings.

No. What I wrote was true, and what you've now added is utterly irrelevant..

No it wasn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Anyone of you people have an argument?

Hobbes Choice wrote:
There are no objective notions of objective morality as objective morality is that upon which the subject may agree

Absolutely. If objective morality existed then it could not be invalidated. So morality therefore cannot be an objective construct. It is a consensus arrived at through inter subjectivity. This is not as rigid as the inter subjectivity of the scientific method but the principle is the same. The reason why this is is because morality changes over time and because the inter subjectivity of one particular demographic might not the same as another with respect to the same issue. This is why moral issues are by their very nature contentious. Because they cannot be treated objectively. Though the notion of objective morality is itself an example of the inter subjectivity of a particular demographic. And because it is it cannot be regarded as objective in the sense that that demographic wants it to be. And so no inter subjective appraisal of morality can therefore be objective so long as counter appraisals contradict it. So then for objective morality to be true it would have to be incapable of any valid alternative interpretations

creativesoul wrote:Anyone of you people have an argument?

Of course. The concept "objective morality", has been thoroughly debunked and no one has stepped up to refute that, nor defend the term.
This thread died on page one.

Pragmatism, is a value that is essential in ethics. Without it there is whimsical self deceit. A danger is with politicians who claim to be pragmatists, and are indeed nothing else that they acknowledge. Pragmatism must have a purpose or end value, and 'pragmatists' are merely ignoring what that is for them. Their own advantage perhaps, and that of their kind.
There can of course be altruists and others who are not pragmatic. But it is consonant with certain values, and is therefore in their dimension, to be used or not. This dimension is that of responsibility. This stands opposed to the least pragmatic end-value of anarchism defined as the autonomous individual.
Simple responsibility can be modified tendentiously. The totalitarian state will call it legal duty, to the ruler, or recruit a god to the same effect. A more altruistic form of duty will have commandments that respect the individual but that may be purely to maintain basic order. Altruism expresses responsibility as a shared morality, and not demanded by the state or god.

<>
Almost totally ignored today, is that values do not only apply to individuals, they apply to social groups in relation to each other. At present values are applied to individuals globally, although we do not have any kind of working global order. if we did then there would be one world anything below that would be nothing but a piece of geography with no social significance. It is impossible to imagine such a democracy with a global population of billions electing a government and president. Ten thousand years of diversity would be lost leaving mere fashion and the economy.
The pragmatic alternative is for values to be expressed from the grass roots upwards. Altruistic diversity. The individual in his local society, then in his country as the repository of culture. Above that countries or states, bound by similar values.

<>
Fair: Fairness is a popular value, and one of the less dramatic. Perhaps slightly vague, and open to abuse. It is fairly obvious that it should be on the same dimension as equality. But how it is then used depends on associated values. For the altruist it may best be paired with justice, while not forgetting other values of altruism. The anarchic employment of fairness, largely ignores justice. Justice for the altruist is egalitarian, while for the absolutist state it is simply about exercising the law.