created by SilasTheSavage on 23/01/2025 at 14:23 UTC
0 upvotes, 10 top-level comments (showing 10)
Comment by AutoModerator at 23/01/2025 at 14:23 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read our updated rules and guidelines[1] before commenting**.
1: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines[2], please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail[3] (not via private message or chat).
2: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
3: https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
4: /message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
Comment by Shield_Lyger at 23/01/2025 at 15:50 UTC
11 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Messrs. Crummet and Swenson note:
However, some atheists will claim that it’s extremely implausible to think that anything has an essence like that—in other words, that it’s extremely implausible to think that God exists—and will claim that this rules theistic explanations of moral knowledge out of bounds.
The simple reason why their argument would be unconvincing to an atheist is that is basically wonky. The average atheist doesn't claim that because it's extremely improbable that the Abrahamic god exists, that theistic explanations of, say, Saturn are out of bounds; instead they understand that there is a naturalistic explanation for Saturn's existence that doesn't require the existence of *any* deities, Abrahamic or otherwise.
So then Messrs. Crummet and Swenson attempt to explain that there isn't a naturalistic explanation for the moral truth that causing suffering is wrong, and therefore factory farming is wrong. But "causing suffering without a good enough reason is wrong, that producing cheaper meat is not a good enough reason for producing tremendous suffering, and that factory farming causes tremendous suffering" is not an objective truth in the same way that there is a gas giant with large rings in the sixth planetary position from the Sun is. They don't make the bridge from understanding that some subset of humanity believes in the truth of a moral statement to the understanding that said moral statement must properly belong in the set of statements that are "real." (As in belonging to the set of statements that comport with the precepts that would be true if Moral Realism is true in our universe.)
So in effect, the basic reason their argument fails is that it's based on the age-old idea that there are things that exist that cannot exist in a purely naturalistic world, and so "God ensured that there would be some degree of alignment between our intuitions and moral truth." But they don't make a compelling case that moral realism requires any sort of divinity, let alone the specific deity of the Abrahamic god, outside of claiming that the adoption of certain precepts that they understand to be correct is highly implausible without divine guidance, because, in theory, human survival would be easier were those precepts untrue.
Comment by whentheworldquiets at 23/01/2025 at 15:34 UTC
12 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It's difficult to engage with what you've written because you don't articulate the Argument from Moral Knowledge well. I'm assuming. Because it makes no sense as you've described it (paraphrasing):
It's not surprising we make moral judgements, because evolution, but it *is* surprising we make 'correct' moral judgements, therefore god.
That's nonsensical. The only basis we have for judging the correctness of morals is our own moral judgement, so how can it be surprising that they correlate?
Comment by ColdSuitcase at 23/01/2025 at 16:38 UTC*
10 upvotes, 2 direct replies
This entire line of argument always strikes me as confused as to the proper referent of “objective.”
The notion of “objective” moral values in the sense of “independent of any 3rd person observer” appears to plainly be nonsense. Morality is necessarily about relations between conscious creatures, and, therefore, it is incoherent absent the existence of such creatures. Murder isn’t “wrong” if no one exists to be murdered—indeed, murder isn’t even a thing in such a context. It’s like “debt”—it isn’t even a thing absent relationships in which to substantiate it. It makes no sense to say “debts ought to be paid” if no one exists to be in debt.
It similarly makes no sense to say morality is “objective” (and we have “knowledge” of it) in the way that the moon or Mt Everest is “objective.” Rather, morality is “objective” only in the sense that it speaks to a collective and shared set of our evolved preferences. It is thus “objective” relative to any one of us insofar our individual preferences (whatever they may be) do not invalidate the species-wide preference.
When people say “murder is objectively wrong” this latter sense is what they mean—it needn’t suggest that, somehow, a rule about unjustified killing of one reasoning creature by another is written into the fabric of the reality by a deity.
Comment by thecelcollector at 23/01/2025 at 15:34 UTC
4 upvotes, 4 direct replies
The idea that there are objective moral truths writ into the fabric of reality, but that a god doesn't exist is one of the strangest and unrealistic scenarios imaginable. I believe it is caused by atheists who, consciously or not, despair at the idea of a nihilistic universe and want to continue holding on to the pleasant vestiges of religion.
Comment by ChaoticJargon at 23/01/2025 at 16:39 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I find issue with the idea that facts are not 'causal' at least in terms of subjective reality. Facts, as they are known, cannot exist outside a conscious knower. That is because a 'fact' is just a concept, and any such fact will therefore have its basis as a cognitive form. Such a form is inherently causal. That is to say, to know something as a fact requires a causal history within a subjective conscious reality. Such a fact can indeed generate further causal actions, such as running away from a threat real or imagined.
Moral knowledge is a concept, an idea potentially worth exploring. It has its own truth as a concept. Therefore, a 'moral fact' is a conceived cognitive concept with real causal powers.
Comment by Grimmmm at 23/01/2025 at 17:29 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Having left the church years ago I realized I needed a new definition for morality, untethered from the notion of mandates of the gods.
The definition I came up with was “a paradigm for existence based on an expectation of a tomorrow.” This seems to work well as a universal foundation for moral frameworks, whether you believe in a god/gods or not. “Tomorrow” in this case can apply to a literal tomorrow, a far distant future or even a belief in an afterlife, and the paradigms (be it commandments, codes of ethics, or humanist mandates) as layers of moral frameworks based on longstanding collective traditions.
Far from absolute truth written into the fabric of the cosmos, then, morality is ultimately a tool, created by humans to streamline our ability to live in close proximity and build stable societies.
Why don’t I steal? Because I don’t want to live in a tomorrow where someone is stealing from me. Why do I pay taxes? Because I believe in the collective good that comes from shared infrastructure and social programs.
This flexible framework accounts for changes in variables. For example, let’s change our idea of a tomorrow. Today I save money and am a careful steward of my resources because I want my children and future generations to prosper. Then it’s revealed a massive meteor is headed to earth and that possible future is no longer viable. With imminent destruction at hand my moral paradigm quickly begins to unravel and reform- now I might as well blow through all my resources and live for the moment.
As someone quipped in another comment that atheists try and hold onto vestiges of religion to not succumb to the despairs of nihilism (gag), to that I say religion simply tries to brand morality in absolute terms out of fear and a desperate, despotic need for control in a universe that is ultimately and blissfully uncaring and unaware.
Comment by Im_Talking at 23/01/2025 at 20:34 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Another article aimed at reducing human beings to savages, when it is clear that most species have a moral code. Many species grieve over the death of another, for example.
I question any theological argument that, as its basis, insinuates that we are not moral creatures. And if a religion must do this to be relevant, then...
Comment by Fheredin at 24/01/2025 at 00:41 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The Moral Knowledge is an argument descended from the Transcendental Argument. The reason for the substitution is pretty simple; the Moral Knowledge argument is intuitive and inoffensive and the Transcendental Argument is a very rage-inducing argument. As such you really can't appraise the Moral Knowledge argument fully without appraising it's connection to the Transcendental argument.
The basic line of thought with the Transcendental Argument is that a number of key aspects of human intellectual life like epistemology, logic, and ethics were created by God and do not work properly when paired with worldviews divorced from God. The knowledge of how the universe "should" work gets buried deep in the human subconscious. The capacity for logic or epistemology or morality is there because God baked it into the human mind, but in the case of an atheist, it is a metastable mirage because the connections explaining how and why they work are broken. If you get too close to the mirage, it starts to dissolve. In the same way, if you push an atheist to explain something like the laws of logic or moral foundations hard enough, you will start to get inconsistent or incoherent answers.
To say this argument line makes people salty would be the understatement of a lifetime.
Comment by Sabotaber at 23/01/2025 at 15:48 UTC
-1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There are many overlapping systems in the human body. Aside from the vital organs, when one system begins to fail others can compensate and keep the overall system stable. Sometimes people can even be born with missing organs without affecting their quality or length of life.
If one of your internal systems fails and then you begin to study how your body works, you may come to the conclusion that many features are emergent effects of other systems rather than the direct effects of a particular system. To religious people, this is what it feels like atheists are doing when they argue about morality. They are like blind men who have developed extraordinary echolocation abilities, and who think it's ridiculous that anyone believes in colors.
Mind the limits of your senses and do not begrudge people for having senses you do not.