Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
But now my question is, why is it objectively better to be healthy rather than unhealthy?
'Healthy' means you live a normal life.
'Unhealthy' means you live a diseased painful life.
Objectively, it is better to be healthy.
[if 'is' means 'is' in your world]
Evidence points to it being true, all other things being equal.
As you clearly state.
This gives us a high probability of being objectively true.
Just because you can't admit the truth doesn't make it untrue.
The limitation appears to be yours. You can't even admit that a thing is what it is -- the most obvious truth imaginable.
Actually, "A is A" is almost a circular argument because it does not require you define either. Because the very point is that "this thing" is "this thing".
You define it by itself. That is the whole point.
And if you have trouble with such a simple concept, I'm not sure what the point of this conversation *is*.
If there is dynamism, then it means at least some things can change. "A is A," implies that nothing can change. So either dynamism is not universally true, or "A is not always A."
That’s a quote from you, general_re. Of course, you are citing the same logic that kept (keeps) Karl Marx in business. He gave us a model of a relentlessly internally-consistent system based on certain fundamental axioms; and the whole thing worked out just fine, on paper so to speak -- just so long as you didn’t ask any “embarrassing” questions (like: what possible bearing can Marxian social-reconstructivist theory have on the way human beings actually live?).
What the system does not anticipate does not exist. All questioning of that sacrosanct premise is absolutely forbidden.
You go on to say:
If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you don’t accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.
All of which begs the question: How many “systems of morality” can possibly exist without nullifying the entire idea of “morality” in the first place?
Which gets us straight to the issue: You clearly make the basis of morality a matter subject to human “preference.” You clearly say as much when you say we humans are completely free to choose the “axioms” that seem best to us. But doesn’t that gut the entire idea of moral order – by making it something that is established by means of personal, private judgment?
Which again begs a question: By what criteria can such judgments legitimately be made?
This is the problem that an alienated man, Karl Marx, once faced. And he faced it, by taking up more or less permanent residence in the stacks of the great library of the British Museum. He thought that the human mind, aided by all the relevant books in that establishment, could finally figure out the destiny of man, and so put man on a sound course to a utopian future.
The point is, Marx’s entire project is in abject denial of actual Reality – the way human beings actually live, and must live if they are truly human.
unspun very gingerly touched on this point with his term “relationality.” I gather that, like me, he finds objectivism’s overemphasis on radical individualism to just be a tad “over the top.” This theory turns a blind eye to the connectedness of the human person with other persons -- his relations in society and the world, and his relations (if any) with God.
There is a narrowing and flattening of the problem simply by virtue of making the human individual perfectly ultimate – such that questions of moral truth can only be decided according to individual taste and discretion. And just to say that only those things that can be proved can be true is to deform Reality itself.
But it seems clear to me that “certainty” and Truth are, if anything, mutually exclusive propositions.
Getting back to Karl Marx: Here’s a guy that thought he could reconstitute the world in his own image. At bottom, that’s what his entire project is all about – a “will to power” to explain Reality according to his own judgments and preferences.
But the world of Reality remains precisely what it is, regardless of Karl Marx. Though it’s true the world of human social relations has been profoundly roiled by Marxian doctrine, the world of natural reality just keeps on ticking….
Hopefully people can recover their senses and stop repeating Marx’s enormity of a theoretical mistake, which I would simply designate as: the flight from Reality.
It happens. Guess you can't be an objectivist, then. You'll get over it ;)
In any universe in which the law of cause and effect exists, as it does in this one...
I suppose it would be crass of me to point out that this assertion is also far from proven true, but you can see David Hume's ideas on causation if you like....
"Beneficial" effects are a "good" choice, "detrimental" effects are a "bad" choice.
This is knowable, and provable -- assuming cause and effect.
Well, you're really assuming quite bit more than causality, but you're right - that's a necessary assumption. Which, again, just goes to show that you're not really an objectivist if you're going to assume things like causality, but you knew that. If it's objectively knowable that causality exists, which objectivism says it is, then you shouldn't simply accept it on faith until it's been rationally proven, again according to objectivism. Dunno how you're supposed to actually get anything done that way, but it is what it is - you're definitely right about that...
High probabilities are not objective proof. Indeed, there are plenty of examples -- both ways -- to demonstrate that "good nutrition" is neither necessary, nor sufficient to ensure good health. And of course, the definition of "good nutrition" is itself a rather subjective thing.
Just because you can't admit the truth, doesn't make you any less wrong.
1) Definition one.
2) Definition two.
3) Non sequitur.
Did I leave anything out?
We take cause and effect as an objective reality as true based on observed evidence, as I know you know.
But yes, this all could be a dream . . . like Bobby dying on Dallas.
Do you find that "deep"? I don't.
Other than this, "we can't know anything for certain because it could all be a dream", do you have any actual substance to discuss?
Do you even admit a high correlation between "high probability" and "true"?
You act as if "probability" has no meaning . . .
How many “systems of morality” can possibly exist without nullifying the entire idea of “morality” in the first place?
As many as you like. Now, if the question you really wanted to ask was "how many objectively true systems of morality can exist?", then the answer is, at most, one - although "zero" is still a distinct possibility, of course, if there is no objective morality beyond what we construct.
Which gets us straight to the issue: You clearly make the basis of morality a matter subject to human “preference.” You clearly say as much when you say we humans are completely free to choose the “axioms” that seem best to us. But doesn’t that gut the entire idea of moral order – by making it something that is established by means of personal, private judgment?
Everybody lays claim to objective truth except poor old me and J.S. Mill. Let's just say that I can't help but notice what little consensus there is about what exactly the "objective truth" is, and therefore I look for pragmatic ways to...well, to duck the question, really ;)
Which again begs a question: By what criteria can such judgments legitimately be made?
If we accept the premise that we can and should begin building a moral edifice from the ground up, then the criteria are probably going to have to be ends-based. IOW, we decide what the preferred outcomes are, and judge the system according to how well it advances those ends. The advantage of this, of course, is that it will be immediately obvious if our system is "objectively" correct in advancing our goals. As to whether it's "objectively" correct in some larger sense...who cares?
Good for you. Now all you have to do is prove the inductive principle, so that we can know that you're resting on an objectively true foundation...
What is that? Do all people have the same nature of existence? Can't be...because different people have different morals. Which person's morals correctly conform to this "nature of existence"? Ayn Rand maybe? How do you show which person's idea of morals is correct? Please tell me, where can I find this "nature of existence" so that I can find out how I should behave morally? Obviously, this is not the answer - this is just a nebulous catch-all phrase that really has no substance and cannot even be defined with any certainty.
We are here, therefore we had a source. One offered source of our existence is God. It is either true or false that God is the source of our existence.
You are confusing being (existence) with morals. I know we exist and I know we are created by God, but morals has to do with right and wrong, not being. so, I ask you again, Where do moral principles come from? Man or God?
The absolutes possible due to the source of man's existence may be of the sort that we have come to know as "moral" things. According to our understanding of things, they would be "moral absolutes".
This is incoherent - you are mixing categories - ontological and moral. This statement you made makes no sense.
In fact, I contend liberty is just such an absolute. That it is a condition of our existence, it is moral, i.e., good, and it is absolute. You may disagree, but I doubt you'll get very far in making a case for the absence of liberty. I'd be very interested in hearing such a case, though. Why would I disagree with liberty? Liberty is an unalienable right (see Decl. of Independence) that comes from God, but it is not a condition of our existence - many do not have liberty. Whether or not someone has liberty depends upon whether or not their ruling authority is a God-fearing man. Not one single marxist country has any liberty becuase they do not believe liberty is God-given, they believe it is man-given. Liberty exists where men follow the moral principles from God.
LOL. The pagan in the cathedral is usually an inconvenience, especially when there's a religious war among the various factions about their claims to "objective truth". Well, whatever - I'll let you two hash out what exactly the "objective truth" is, with the simple observation that neither of you can ever objectively prove your positions to the satisfaction of the other. Which is why my response to the question of "objective truth" is more or less "who cares?" I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue - sue me ;)
Based on many, many lifetimes of observation and testing, we have found certain things that seem to be objectively "true".
A is A. Cause and effect. Water is wet. Fire is hot.
But yes, this all could be a dream . . . Hitler could have been Jesus come back to take his revenge on the Jews . . . Bill Clinton could actually be a Time Lord . . . Hillary Clinton might be Mother Theresa's clone.
This is silly, dude.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I had a brief lull between projects, and thought I'd try and find an enjoyable, though-provoking conversation on a subject of substance. You have, unfortunately, wasted my time. My mistake, I suppose.
I had really hoped you were capable of going beyond "this could all just be a dream".
My bad. I'm out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.