Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:36 pm
You are entitled NOTHING! Not even a Universe that makes sense.
Everyone is entitled to reality. In fact, one is entitled to nothing less, and nothing other. One certainly has no entitlement to delusions...nor, for that matter, to mere "desires."
We ARE in a material and consequential universe.
Infinite regress problem.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
No problem for me, because I believe Hume's ontology was plain wrong. I have an ontology that justifies an ethics.
So you have an ontology that ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
You have an ontology that ignores the arrow of time?
You have an ontology which ignores that we live in a universe of cause-and-consequence?
No. I have affirmed all of the above. They are, in fact, quite helpful to my case. I would have no incentive not to.
You have an ontology that ignores that the "IS" is now and the "OUGHT" is future, so the is-ought gap is just an analogy for the arrow of time?
You've got that wrong. "Ought," as Hume well understood, is a value. "Is" is a statement of fact. It is not because they are not time-contemporaneous that there is a division between them; they are of different orders completely. That was Hume's point.
His critique is a rebuke to secular moralism definitely, and to Aristotelian Natural Law theory, perhaps. It has no consequence if there is a God. Then values are not justified and established from reading mere natural "facts" at all. They're transcendentally justified.
So Hume would need a demonstration that transcendent authority for ethics was impossible. And he offered no such thing.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
But what will you do? Live without any moral justifications, I guess. You may end up "good" or "bad" as conventional morality measures such things: but you won't actually be able to believe in any of that. You have no ontology able to ground it.
You have invented one in order to ground it
That's a pure assumption on your side. And it might seem momentarily convenient to you to imagine it's true. But the long-term consequences of your belief, if you have the courage to be true to them the way Nietzsche laid them out, will not prove so happy.
Fortunately, they are
mere assumptions.
But look at the claim you are making.
A grounded morality is better than an ungrounded morality.
In all ways. Yes.
In what framework would you address the truth-value of such a claim ?
In an ontological framework that includes objective morality because of an objective creation by the objectively real God.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:28 pm
"Pragmatically" is no more informative than the answer "Because." It's a total non-answer, a mere dodge.
Additionally, it's just another form of arbitrary consequentialism. It has no justification, no grounds, and no "oughtness" to it.
A made up foundation is no less a dodge than a no-foundation.
That also is not an answer for you. For even were it right, it still leaves you with nothing to ground any moral or ethical account of your own. It's as if you were to say, "I'm going to become rich by burning everyone else's money." You wouldn't. You'd just make everyone equally poor.
It's has made up justifications. Made up grounds and made up oughtness.
If it's not true. But you haven't shown that.
Also, surely you need to justify your justification? And you also need to justify your justification's justification? Infinite regress is everywhere...
Justification, like the cause-consequence cascade, ends at the First Cause decisively.
So allow me to point out. My morality is functionally identical to yours. It does the same thing.
You have no grounded morality. You're stuck with a merely arbitrary one. And I would only be your equal if your ontology were correct. But that's just the question: is it? And how do you prove it is?
For you believe in a past-infinite causal universe. You know for certain this is logically impossible. And yet, you accuse me of wishful thinking? One can't imagine anything more wishful than believing in a past-infinite causal universe, actually.
And I am also going to make a claim: an ungrounded (consequentialist) morality is better than a grounded one. Because it's cheaper - I have had to spend no time/energy making op oughts, frounds and justifications.
It's not a "morality." It's the state of amorality. That's all you're left with.
Pick anything...say, "mass murder." If a jihadi or a neo-Nazi were tempted to do it, but he were to say to you, "If you can really show me a good reason why it's wrong, I won't," then by what pattern of reasoning could you show he was wrong?
Just so, whatever putatively "ethical" beliefs you have are merely arbitrary fancies on your part. You can't justify even one of them from your own account of what is real. (i.e. your ontology)