religion and morality

[bahman]

Yes, that's a point I often raise myself: how to reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy. But those like IC here, confronted with the "for all practical purposes" implications of that, "think up" these "analytical contraptions" to explain it...away?

What are analytical contraptions?

Well, when discussing religion and morality, my aim is always bring the exchange out into the world that we live and interact with others in. What is someone's particular moral philosophy? How is that related to their own particular understanding of God and religion?

And then: How are both derived [or not derived] from the manner in which I construe moral and spiritual values as the existential embodiment of dasein.

IC and others here seem less intent on going there and more intent on keeping the exchange up in the spiritual clouds.

Well, to me they are anyway.

Thus...

...here I explore the extent to which our "tendencies" are rooted more in the subjective, existential parameters of dasein..."I" derived from interacting with others out in a particular world understood in a particular way historically, culturally, socially, politically, personally etc., or, if, using the tools of philosophy, we can ascertain the most rational and virtuous way in which to understand these clearly conflicting tendencies regarding dozens and dozens of "conflicting goods" that have fiercely divided us down through the ages.

As for what we are responsible for here, who is to really say with any degree of sophistication given all the variables involved. And in lives having to confront endless contingencies, change and change.

I agree with what you said.

But what separates me from most others [even those who generally agree with me] is that my understanding of both morality and religion is now "fractured and fragmented" such that "I" am unable to believe that one frame of mind here is necessarily more rational than another. I'm "drawn and quartered" in regard to all moral conflicts. And I can not imagine this changing without becoming convinced that a God, the God does in fact exist.

In other words, No God = this frame of mind...

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

...to me now.

So, basically, I too come to ask myself, "the truth is obviously objective but how about morality?"

The either/or world truths rooted in the laws of nature, math, the logical rules of language. They are everywhere. But what of morality and metaphysics? What is the human brain even capable of knowing objectively here?

The very limits of human knowledge perhaps?

As I mentioned there is no relation between the truth and morality, whether the truth is God or a set of prepositions. What is left? Preferences, like or dislike, circumstances, etc. In fact, most acts that concern morality are related to these factors, without them the act is neutral so there is no concern for morality. These factors are however relative so one cannot derive objective morality from them. The rule of thumb is that you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others.

[henry quirk]

you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others.

Damn straight, and not just as some rule of thumb.

[iambiguous]

As I mentioned there is no relation between the truth and morality, whether the truth is God or a set of prepositions.

On the other hand, what does that have to do with the real world...the one that we live in and interact with others in? In fact, for the vast majority of men and women, they do believe that there is a fundamental relationship between truth and morality. Their own truth and their own morality, for example.

And it is what people believe about both that precipitates the behaviors they choose. And it is the behaviors that they choose that actually generates the consequences that can have a profound impact on our lives.

And, for the most fierce moral objectivists among us, go ahead, try to reason with them...try to convince them into believing in moral relativism predicated on the assumption that there is no God.

Let alone, to think in depth about the assumptions that I make in these threads:

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

I've been doing that for years. With little success. Why? Because, in my view, the moral objectivists are far more interested in sustaining the comfort and the consolation that believing in what they think is true is true. What it is that they do believe is true is not nearly as important.

For most it's still God and religion. But for others, it is one or another political ideology/dogma, or one or another philosophical/deontological narrative: Plato, Descartes, Kant.

What is left? Preferences, like or dislike, circumstances, etc. In fact, most acts that concern morality are related to these factors, without them the act is neutral so there is no concern for morality. These factors are however relative so one cannot derive objective morality from them. The rule of thumb is that you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others.

Yes, but, again, why do some choose one set of preferences, while others roundly reject them and choose others?

I root this in dasein for the reason I note above and elsewhere.

As for this...

"The rule of thumb is that you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others."

...in what particular context, given what is actually at stake?

In social, political and economic interactions where do your rights ends and the rights of others begin? And of course the other way around?

Here human relationships, in any particular community, tend to revolve around one or another [often] complex relationship between might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

[iambiguous]

you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others.

Damn straight, and not just as some rule of thumb.

Again, given what particular context? When, for example, the rights you wish to pursue in your own life conflict with the rights that others wish to pursue in theirs?

John demands the right to live in a world where he can own as many guns as he pleases. Jane demands the right to live in a world where there are no privately owned guns.

They both have reasons construed by many as sensible for what they believe.

Conflicting rights.

So, are only the reasons that you give here allowed?

[henry quirk]

John demands the right to live in a world where he can own as many guns as he pleases. Jane demands the right to live in a world where there are no privately owned guns.

Yeah, I'm tired of hypotheticals: aren't you?

Let's get real...

I own a Stoeger 12 gauge, a twin trigger coach gun: beautiful weapon, robust, low maintenance, very effective.

I'll never give it up, hand it over, or register it. It's my property, I've taken no human lives (yet), infringed on no liberties, and damaged no properties with it. As far as I'm concerned: Jane, you, The State, none of you have a claim on it or my ownership and use of it.

Here's your chance, Bubba: make your case on why I ought to allow you to disarm me.

This here is as real, on the ground, off the skyhooks, as you're gonna get: my context vs your context.

[RCSaunders]

John demands the right to live in a world where he can own as many guns as he pleases. Jane demands the right to live in a world where there are no privately owned guns.

Yeah, I'm tired of hypotheticals: aren't you?

Let's get real...

I own a Stoeger 12 gauge, a twin trigger coach gun: beautiful weapon, robust, low maintenance, very effective.

I'll never give it up, hand it over, or register it. It's my property, I've taken no human lives (yet), infringed on no liberties, and damaged no properties with it. As far as I'm concerned: Jane, you, The State, none of you have a claim on it or my ownership and use of it.

Here's your chance, Bubba: make your case on why I ought to allow you to disarm me.

This here is as real, on the ground, off the skyhooks, as you're gonna get: my context vs your context.

There will always be idiots who want to interfere in your life justified by some demeneted reasoning that its for your own sake, or society's sake, or the environment's sake. It's like disease. It cannot be eliminated from the world, but you can do everything in your power to evade it.

So there will always be idiots who want to take your guns away. Directly confronting them will almost certainly ensure they will succeed, especially if you do it publicly. I've always owned and carried guns, even in states as anti-gun as Massachusetts. (I can tell you stories about that.) Except in New Hampshire and Vermont, I always carried concealed, and never never never told anyone else I even thought about guns (with the exception of the cases when I had to use them).

I now live is SC, which is limited Constitutional carry with a very easy to obtain permit. There are anti-gun nuts here too, but they will never be a problem for me, because they'll never know or suspect I even own a gun, much less have one on my person. I think that is the only way to ensure my firearms freedom, while any form of confrontational attempt to protect that freedom is just belligerence and counter-productive. It is not possible to convert a gun hater into a gun lover. "You cannot argue a man into liking a glass of beer." (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.)

[henry quirk]

I hear ya.

You gotta remember, though: my post isn't really about guns, anymore than it's really about guns in the example Biggy offered (which is high-larious cuz Biggy frowns on hypotheticals while at the same dealin' only in hypotheticals).

No, what it's about is: Biggy has been sayin' over and over folks have no common ground to agree on anything outside of what a god imposes.

Me: I say there is, as fact, common ground -- that may be god-derived, but doesn't have to be -- that all men stand on and that can be the undergirdin' for a basic, minimal, commonsense ethic for everyone.

Biggy, of course, ignores that common ground and drones on about skyhooks & Datsun.

The whole gun thing is my attempt to ground, to his satisfaction, the conflict between what he calls conflicting goods in real people, real circumstance; to illustrate that common ground exists between folks in opposition.

I don't expect to convince him of diddly: I simply want him to acknowledge that commonality among men instead of dismissin' it.

Truth be told, though: I don't expect to get even that.

Any conversation with him is tiltin' at windmills: he's not lookin' for what he calls a universal font; as -- as he self-describes -- a fractured self, he's just lookin' to preserve his self-image and abstain from actually partcipatin' in livin' cuz, you know, it's all conflict and whatnot.

He's an Ivory Tower sitter, all detached and wise, and he can only justify his status, to himself, I guess, if there's no unifyin' meaning in the world and only unabated conflict (cuz that's his bread & butter).

[RCSaunders]

I hear ya.

You gotta remember, though: my post isn't really about guns, anymore than it's really about guns in the example Biggy offered (which is high-larious cuz Biggy frowns on hypotheticals while at the same dealin' only in hypotheticals).

No, what it's about is: Biggy has been sayin' over and over folks have no common ground to agree on anything outside of what a god imposes.

Me: I say there is, as fact, common ground -- that may be god-derived, but doesn't have to be -- that all men stand on and that can be the undergirdin' for a basic, minimal, commonsense ethic for everyone.

Biggy, of course, ignores that common ground and drones in about skyhooks & Datsun.

The whole gun thing is my attempt to ground, to his satisfaction, the conflict between what he calls conflicting goods in real people, real circumstance, to illustrate that common ground exists between folks in opposition.

I don't expect to convince him of diddly: I simply want him to acknowledge that commonality among men instead of dismissin' it.

Truth be told, though: I don't expect to get even that.

Any conversation with him is tiltin' at windmills: he's not lookin' for what he calls a universal font; as -- as he self-describes -- a fractured self, he's just lookin' to preserve his self-image and abstain from actually partcipatin' in livin' cuz, you know, it's all conflict and whatnot.

He's an Ivory Tower sitter, all detached and wise, and he can only justify his status, to himself, I guess, if there's no unifyin' meaning in the world and only unabated conflict (cuz that's his bread & butter).

You are probably right about all of that, though I have come to the place where I have very little confidence in judging other's motives. Most of the things these people say totally bewilder me when it comes guessing what is behind the things they believe and try to promote.

I probably shouldn't have addressed the gun issue at all. It wasn't really directed at you but what I call those who think they are pro-gun but turn out to be gun snobs or using guns to further their political agenda.

As you know, most of the time one can live pretty much as they choose if they are willing to do the work, pay the price, keep their mouths shut and go about the business of living their life, drawing as little attention themselves as possible. They don't go on fart-book and tell the whole word what they are doing and who they are fighting and how much they hate the police and government and whether they have lately changed their underwear.

[iambiguous]

John demands the right to live in a world where he can own as many guns as he pleases. Jane demands the right to live in a world where there are no privately owned guns.

Yeah, I'm tired of hypotheticals: aren't you?

Let's get real...

I own a Stoeger 12 gauge, a twin trigger coach gun: beautiful weapon, robust, low maintenance, very effective.

I'll never give it up, hand it over, or register it. It's my property, I've taken no human lives (yet), infringed on no liberties, and damaged no properties with it. As far as I'm concerned: Jane, you, The State, none of you have a claim on it or my ownership and use of it.

Again, you completely miss the point. Any number of others can come up with arguments that rebut the assumptions -- political prejudices I believe are rooted subjectively in dasein, in the life you've lived -- you make about private citizens owning guns. Arguments that, given the assumptions that they make, you are no more able to just make go away.

Just go here...

https://gun-control.procon.org/

...and be confronted with all of the conflicting points of view.

And what about chemical and biological weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery pieces, mortars, weapons of war...same thing?

If you own them, it's your property. End of story?

And since this is a thread devoted to religion and morality, how about Christianity and guns?

Here's one take on it: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian- ... Bible.html

Perhaps we can run that by IC, in order to determine if they got it right.

One thing I believe we can be absolutely certain of: only a fool refuses to think exactly like you do about, well, everything under the sun?

Right?

[bahman]

As I mentioned there is no relation between the truth and morality, whether the truth is God or a set of prepositions.

On the other hand, what does that have to do with the real world...the one that we live in and interact with others in? In fact, for the vast majority of men and women, they do believe that there is a fundamental relationship between truth and morality. Their own truth and their own morality, for example.

People believe in all sorts of different things. The burden of proof is on them to show that the is a relationship between truth and morality when it comes to philosophy.

And it is what people believe about both that precipitates the behaviors they choose. And it is the behaviors that they choose that actually generates the consequences that can have a profound impact on our lives.

Belief is one factor. People change their beliefs all the time though. How? By facing the truth. Where we are heading? To find the truth and the truth sets us free.

And, for the most fierce moral objectivists among us, go ahead, try to reason with them...try to convince them into believing in moral relativism predicated on the assumption that there is no God.

Well, if they think that there is a link between objective morality and God then they should stop thinking so once one shows that there is no God. What is left is once objectivism is shown to be wrong?

Let alone, to think in depth about the assumptions that I make in these threads:

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

I've been doing that for years. With little success. Why? Because, in my view, the moral objectivists are far more interested in sustaining the comfort and the consolation that believing in what they think is true is true. What it is that they do believe is true is not nearly as important.

Yes, it is the comfort and fear of punishment that makes them resist the truth. We have to be very careful to not teach our children things as truth. We should teach them everything. The truth is there bright and clear. They will find it.

For most it's still God and religion. But for others, it is one or another political ideology/dogma, or one or another philosophical/deontological narrative: Plato, Descartes, Kant.

I think it is just dogma when it comes to religion and morality.

What is left? Preferences, like or dislike, circumstances, etc. In fact, most acts that concern morality are related to these factors, without them the act is neutral so there is no concern for morality. These factors are however relative so one cannot derive objective morality from them. The rule of thumb is that you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others.

Yes, but, again, why do some choose one set of preferences, while others roundly reject them and choose others?

What else we can do? We have to move on.

I root this in dasein for the reason I note above and elsewhere.

As for this...

"The rule of thumb is that you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others."

...in what particular context, given what is actually at stake?

In all contexts.

In social, political and economic interactions where do your rights ends and the rights of others begin?

True.

And of course the other way around?

True.

Here human relationships, in any particular community, tend to revolve around one or another [often] complex relationship between might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

That matters when there is a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest however arises from not respecting the rule of thumb.

[henry quirk]

The rule of thumb is that you have all rights when it comes to your life and have no right on the lives of others.

The conflict of interest...arises from not respecting the rule of thumb.

Yep...you nailed it...all of Biggy's worries, you knocked 'em down in two lines.

I wish I woulda done that.

[RCSaunders]

Again, you completely miss the point. Any number of others can come up with arguments that rebut the assumptions -- political prejudices I believe are rooted subjectively in dasein, in the life you've lived --

You are probably right about most of the people in the world who never think for themselves, believe whatever they learn from their teachers, political leaders, religious authorities, and peers and go through life repeating whatever they've heard and seen other do without ever having an original idea. Thinking for oneself is difficult and discomforting because it means being responsible for everything one chooses and does. It is so much easier to just go along with what everyone else in one's click or community believes and does. It relieves one of the sense of responsibility. After all, if all one thinks and believes is determined by something else: their environment, their culture, their economic conditions, their education (or lack thereof), their genetics, their desires and feelings, or their dasein, whatever they do, it's not their fault. It used to be, "the devil made me do it." For you, "dasein made me do it," but it does not relieve you of responsibility for what you think and do. H.L. Mencken was right:

The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.

People with vies like yours are the evidence.

What is wrong with all that post-modernist philosophical mumbo-jumbo, like culture or dasein determining one's thoughts and beliefs is the huge ignorance of the fact, there is not one thing, from language, to diet, to social/political ideologies that simply exist on there own. Someone had to be the first one to think and choose to believe and do everything that you, or anyone, thinks of as society or culture, individuals who thought for themselves what no one else thought or no one ever thought before. Everything you, refusing to think for yourself and take for granted as just existing in your society or culture had to be thought and created for a first time by individuals who defied what everyone else in their society believed and did.

Most people do choose to allow their lives to be determined by their authorities and culture, but it's not a necessary condition and always a mistake. Nothing makes someone choose to be a sheep, it's just easier, and most people are terrified of being totally responsible for their own lives and things like dasein are a wonderful excuse for intentional ignorance.

And what about chemical and biological weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery pieces, mortars, weapons of war...same thing?

Yeah! What about all those awful things. Who owns and uses most of them? How do you propose eliminating them? Certainly not with laws enforced by the very governments who own and use all those horrible instruments of cruelty and destruction, as well as the most guns, which they use to kill and maim people every day.

[I personally know and have known people who own, even use things like machine guns, flame throwers, hand grenades, LARS rockets, and bazookas, both legally and illegally. They never have and never would harm another human being. The only individuals who use such things to intentionally harm others are agents of governments, like police and military.]

One thing I believe we can be absolutely certain of: only a fool refuses to think exactly like you do about, well, everything under the sun?

That's a pretty silly accusation to make. If you are right and all one's "political prejudices ... are rooted subjectively in dasein," Henry is only saying what his dasein makes him say. If you don't like what he say, it's not his fault, it's dasein all the way down. But I doubt you really believe that (else you would not be criticising him). Those who believe something else makes people believe and do what they do are never consistent. No lie is ever consistent.

[henry quirk]

Again, you completely miss the point. Any number of others can come up with arguments that rebut the assumptions -- political prejudices I believe are rooted subjectively in dasein, in the life you've lived -- you make about private citizens owning guns.

Nope: never said diddly about private citizens. We ain't dickin' around with your intellectual contraptions. This is real, bubba: I own a gun and I won't give it up. Convince me why I should (hint: demonstrate how my ownin' a gun deprives you of life, liberty, or property [or, as Bahman might say, how I'm not respectin' the rule of thumb]).

And what about chemical and biological weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, artillery pieces, mortars, weapons of war...same thing?

If you own them, it's your property. End of story?

Absolutely! If I want a bazooka, can locate the owner of one, can meet his price, I will own a bazooka.

If I'm not deprivin' you of life, liberty, or property (in other words, I'm respectin' Bahman's rule of thumb), I can't see how it's any your business. In fact: any objection you have that isn't rooted in my demonstrably deprivin' you of life, liberty, or property means you're infringin' on my life, liberty, and property which means you're the bad guy.

Lay out your reasonin' why I'm wrong.

One thing I believe we can be absolutely certain of: only a fool refuses to think exactly like you do about, well, everything under the sun?

Right?

Nope: if you don't want a gun, don't own one...makes me no nevermind.

Your hatred or fear of firearms is none of my business till you decide I'm supposed to share in, support, your hatred or fear and disarm myself. In other words: it's none of my biz till you decide I'm a fool for refusin' to think exactly like you and then move to hobble me, to make me do what you think is right.

See how it works? If I respect your life, liberty, and property, and you respect my life, liberty, and property, then we ought have no headaches between us.

You wanna smoke dope, pretend you're a girl, eat nuthin' but lettuce, staple a mask to your face, eat Drano, etc.? Go right ahead: none of that, and more, is any of my business. It becomes my business when you try to force my compliance and participation in your choices: when you *push your dope on me, demand I treat you as a girl, move to deprive me of beef, mandate I wear a mask, legislate I should buy you the Drano.

You talk about rebuttals: but, really, you're talkin' about pokin' around in my business becuz you don't like what I do.

Buttinskies: you and yours.

As I say: there's a commonality all men share. You are yours as I am mine. We respect that: we got no strife.

-----

Next up: abortion (again)




*clarification: you wanna buy & sell, that ain't my business; you wanna mandate consumption (of, for example, a sketchy jab), well, that is my business

[henry quirk]

You are probably right about all of that

So, did I call it or what?

though I have come to the place where I have very little confidence in judging other's motives.

You hit the mark pretty often (but when you miss, you miss spectacularly [no offense]... )

[promethean75]

"If I'm not deprivin' you of life, liberty, or property (in other words, I'm respectin' the rule of thumb), I can't see how it's any your business."

But should felons possess firearms?

Discuss.