As I see it: "different suppositional framework" is a just a fancy dance step and I don't dance.
I wouldn't want you to dance.
There's nothing unusual about the idea of "suppositions," really. All it means is that if you suppose X is true about the world, you're likely to act as if X is true; if you suppose Y is the case instead, then you're likely to act as if Y is true. That's all. Nothing fancy or controversial there.
Immanuel Can wrote:
All cultures, governing bodies, ideologues, enthusiasts and proclaimers of rights are capable of being doubted, and none can provide a defense against skepticism. And that which does not exist independent and above the throes of the human drama has the sort of enduring authority that can guarantee we are right to ascribe any equality of value or rights to all persons.
But Immanuel can.
He's not in any hurry though.
Immanuel Can wrote:
uwot wrote:I understand grounding to mean having a reason to believe. In most people's epistemology, that would mean either there is empirical evidence for it, or the proposition is self evidently true or can be logically deduced from self evident truths. I am happy to concede that none of these can be applied to statements that claim to be ethical from an atheistic point of view.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. We're on the same page, now.
Am I the only one who thinks that's exactly what I've been saying from the beginning?
"...even granting that Atheism's premises are true, there would be nothing in them to sponsor any belief in values at all."
Unless I'm mistaken: uwot's been sayin' that over and over.
#
Which is more valid: the value I assign to 'this' or 'that', for reasons that may be wholly idiosyncratic to me, or, the value I'm taught to assign to 'this' or 'that' (by conductors of a particular strain of thinking)?
If one is a communitarian: then one will cling to the transmission of values and transmission of the methods of value assignment (viewing the other possibility as threat to the coherent transmission of those values and threat to the coherent transmission of methods of value assignment)
If one is an individual: then one will side with the idiosyncratic assignment of value (viewing the other as threat to the coherence of one's own head).
The only real test is how closely the value and value assignment on either side aligns with what is real.
Any other test (or, standard) is poop on toast.
#
"moral value"
Jumbo shrimp.
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I would just like to add that this thread seems to be coming to a clear statement of the basis for morality, or the lack thereof. Most of what has been posted here is something I might have posted myself, if I had thought it through, - and wasn't so stubborn.
uwot wrote:
I understand grounding to mean having a reason to believe. In most people's epistemology, that would mean either there is empirical evidence for it, or the proposition is self evidently true or can be logically deduced from self evident truths. I am happy to concede that none of these can be applied to statements that claim to be ethical from an atheistic point of view.
I am hoping you are not an American. The Founding Fathers would turn over in their collective graves. Locke included.
As far as equality goes everyone is equal, PERIOD! When one speaks of equality they can only mean potential, from conception. All eggs and sperm have the exact same potential, barring something that changes them, as in some environmental condition changing the mother’s or father’s body such that their gametes were affected.
The fact is that everything including us is made of elements, star stuff, at least everything heaver than hydrogen. And these elements always are static, i.e., they do not change one bit, until acted upon by another element, due to the four basic natural forces, i.e., Gravity, EMF, Strong & Weak; I believe they are actually all the same forces, based upon electrical potential, but that’s another topic entirely. So then it is clear that what causes things to change, become different, is environment. Environment is ‘everything,’ as far as differences go, It’s true both physically and mentally speaking. From star formation to element formation, to things made from elements, i.e. humans, such that environment is the key factors between us.
The Earth is a metamorphosis of star stuff, elements, and it’s not homogenous in the least, with the elements strewn randomly, arbitrarily. Volcanic activity and plate tectonics can be seen as a mixer of sorts, but the earth is still a long way from homogenous, and was less so in the beginning when life was initially spawned. Some places have an abundance of lodestone, pull your compass from your pocket and see, some radioactive isotopes some aluminum, some fluorine, some calcium, etc. In addition there are different elevations, with varying amounts of the element, oxygen, and other gases. There are varying amounts of cosmic radiation that makes it to earth’s surface because of its magnetosphere not being symmetrical, where the lines of flux enter the poles, hence the auroras, and the ozone layer is not evenly distributed, as well as varying cloud cover, distance from the sun due to tilt, and the fact that it’s a sphere resulting in more solar radiation at the equator than the northern and southern hemispheres. Then there are different plant species harboring different compounds in varying places due to this non homogenous element distribution. And this is just the tip of the preverbal iceberg as far as the differences in the earth’s environment goes, from place to place, which affects the animals that are arbitrarily placed relative to these differences. How does an animal species develop with a home, sometimes for thousands of years, generation after generation, relative to lets say a large pocket of uranium at sea level as opposed to iron, and magnesium, at 15,000 feet above sea level, And there are thousands, maybe millions of permutations of these differences.
Make no mistake; Evolution is completely governed by environment. Yes, and with Humans this idea applies to mental stress in varying homes of varying parents, varying psychological trauma’s, varying priorities, etc. There are thousands, maybe millions more emotional differences in any particular environment that affects these differences that you think you see.
But the truth is, we’re initially all of equal potential, as I’m sure you can plainly see by now, that we are not responsible, nay, not even aware of these environmental effects such that we can change them, especially since we are, in the US, slaves of other humans for eighteen years, while the affects have already taken hold. The reason everyone is equal and there is no inequality amongst us, is because we have absolutely no say as to changing the environmental’s responsible for such differences.
So while there are perceived differences they have absolutely no value whatsoever, there is no inequality, as we are all ‘equally’ bound by that which we have no power over, that makes us what we appear to be. The dichotomy’s we use to equate are relative to a universal, unknown to us, and therefore illusory! There is actually no such thing as a normal human being.
Just consider yourself lucky if you seem to be untainted, but again I’d say that’s based on a relative dichotomy with no universal by which to judge such a concept, but that’s another issue entirely. Or at least I’m done for now!
Now do you finally understand my point?
Only a fool 'ignorantly,' looks at the damage done, by lead or other heavy metals, for instance, and then judges someone less than, unequal to themselves. They should instead thank their lucky stars, that their environment precluded such affects. Trust me, that person affected in not unequal, just unfortunately different.
We are all equal! Equally bound by ignorance of the truth of such matters!
As far as equality goes everyone is equal, PERIOD!
Do you mean everyone IS equal, or everyone SHOULD BE equal? Because they're not the same, and in some ways are opposite statements. The first one says "Everyone is *already* equal," but the second implies, "Not everybody is currently equal, but we ought to change that to equality?" Which one of these two different statements do you believe?
If you believe "Everyone IS equal," then there's nothing to complain about. Men are equal to women. Children are equal to adults. People raised in ghettos are equal to people raised in mansions. People with an IQ of 130 are equal to people with an IQ of 75. People who play Beethoven are equal to people who play kazoo. People who starve to death are equal with those who are filled. People with severed limbs are equal to people with whole bodies. Blind people are equal to sighted people. Slaves are equal to masters. In fact, if IS is what you mean, there is no warrant for anyone to complain, since everyone IS equal already. There is no need for social justice, because everybody is already equal, according to you.
On the other hand, if you mean "Everyone OUGHT to be equal," this is different. They you mean that even if blind people are not treated as well as sighted ones, they *ought* to be. If some people are raised in Developing World conditions and others are raised in Developed World conditions, this *ought* to be changed to equivalency of some kind. Then social justice comes back into play.
But then you also owe it to people to explain *why* we all ought to know that the right way to treat people is as equals, since it is readily observable that many are currently *not* being treated as such. How, in fact, do you know (if you have no criteria in mind) that any injustice or inequality is even occurring?
Instead of yelling PERIOD (which actually settles nothing at all) just tell us why you believe people *ought* to be treated as equals.
As far as equality goes everyone is equal, PERIOD!
Do you mean everyone IS equal, or everyone SHOULD BE equal? Because they're not the same, and in some ways are opposite statements. The first one says "Everyone is *already* equal," but the second implies, "Not everybody is currently equal, but we ought to change that to equality?" Which one of these two different statements do you believe?
If you believe "Everyone IS equal," then there's nothing to complain about. Men are equal to women. Children are equal to adults. People raised in ghettos are equal to people raised in mansions. People with an IQ of 130 are equal to people with an IQ of 75. People who play Beethoven are equal to people who play kazoo. People who starve to death are equal with those who are filled. People with severed limbs are equal to people with whole bodies. Blind people are equal to sighted people. Slaves are equal to masters. In fact, if IS is what you mean, there is no warrant for anyone to complain, since everyone IS equal already. There is no need for social justice, because everybody is already equal, according to you.
On the other hand, if you mean "Everyone OUGHT to be equal," this is different. They you mean that even if blind people are not treated as well as sighted ones, they *ought* to be. If some people are raised in Developing World conditions and others are raised in Developed World conditions, this *ought* to be changed to equivalency of some kind. Then social justice comes back into play.
But then you also owe it to people to explain *why* we all ought to know that the right way to treat people is as equals, since it is readily observable that many are currently *not* being treated as such. How, in fact, do you know (if you have no criteria in mind) that any injustice or inequality is even occurring?
Instead of yelling PERIOD (which actually settles nothing at all) just tell us why you believe people *ought* to be treated as equals.
Then you either didn't read or understand what followed the word "PERIOD." As I have already answered all the points you made in this post of yours.
Then you either didn't read or understand what followed the word "PERIOD."
Okay, that's just plain funny.
A charitable view would say, "Spheres is not understanding": a less charitable one would be "Spheres is just being obtuse." I need not say either to see we're at cross purposes here.
Then you either didn't read or understand what followed the word "PERIOD."
Okay, that's just plain funny. You can say that!
A charitable view would say, "Spheres is not understanding": a less charitable one would be "Spheres is just being obtuse." I need not say either to see we're at cross purposes here. Ditto!
Well, thanks for the chat.
My father thought he was witty when he changed an old saying from: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" to "you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think." But I'm much more charitable, I changed, 'Sometimes one can't see the forest for the trees' to 'Sometimes one can't see life for the self.
Yes, thank you for initially engaging me, telling me I was wrong, just to beg out when you see that I have a point.
There are only differences amongst people, which is valueless to the truly enlightened. Only those that are insecure, needing to place someone below themselves, to validate their life, sees it otherwise, as saying, "all are not equal," is in fact the problem that causes the inequality. So if you truly want to bridge the inequality gap that "those" types of people have created, then you must first look at yourself and the true reason you believe people are unequal. Because as long as you believe that people are unequal there can never be equality in your eyes, and it's perpetuated, when others look into them.
Edit-> double word typo: in to is
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
