tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post116535828608605033..comments2024-03-27T00:15:41.321-07:00Comments on Kill The Afterlife: Soulster and MoralityAaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-39391130439667153142007-07-13T18:17:00.000-07:002007-07-13T18:17:00.000-07:00Runk,You miss the point. Arbitraryness of morality...Runk,<BR/><BR/>You miss the point. Arbitraryness of morality is about a conscious rule giver dictating the rules. Trinitarianism does nothing to solve this dillema. <BR/><BR/>Whether its 1 person, 3 persons, or 5 billion, it matters not. Whether they are eternal or temporal also matters not. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro" REL="nofollow">Try reading this</A>.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-42478346026624692882007-07-13T12:06:00.000-07:002007-07-13T12:06:00.000-07:00If God was only one being his morality might be ar...If God was only one being his morality might be arbitrary and his intent on creating other conscious beings would be in question too. But since God is 3 infinite persons, his morality is not arbitrary. 3 eternal, infinite persons. Your right, morality does come from the objective interactions between persons. If any one of the persons of God was in disagreement or selfish or what not, then he would not longer be one unified entity. But God is the metaphysical necessity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1167611553903618472006-12-31T16:32:00.000-08:002006-12-31T16:32:00.000-08:00I wish everyone would just shut up about morals. ...I wish everyone would just shut up about morals. There are none. They're just a matter of taste, like opinions. You can't make an ultimate decision about whether Taylor Hicks is or is not better than Katharine McPhee* just as you can't make an ultimate decision about whether masturbation is wrong or not**.<BR/> Anyone who thinks that there are moral absolutes should see Woody Allens' Crimes and Misdemeanors. <BR/>SPOILER ALERT- DON'T READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IF YOU PLAN TO SEE CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!!<BR/> One of the plots involves a man who kills a woman. The man than faces a question, if a man (or a woman) kills somebody, doesn't get caught and doesn't choose to be bothered by the "morals" of it is it bad that he murdered somebody?<BR/>The movie answers this question with a "No."*** This really isn't too shocking since Woody Allens' an Atheist (like me).<BR/> Here's my version of "morality":<BR/>1) The ultimate goal of every human being is happiness. In other words, be happy, no matter what. Try to find the good in all situations and be grateful for what you have. Happiness is the mother of success.<BR/>2) Humans are selfish, you can't escape it. Even seemingly selfless acts are selfish. <BR/>3) Humans can be kind without a god. This is because kindness will attract more friends.<BR/>4) Be yourself. If you are you are more likely to attract people who are like you. Besides that being yourself is much more freeing than being a fake.<BR/>5) If you're going to commit a crime be sure that you'll be able to deal with the negative consequences that may come if you're caught.<BR/> As you can see my version of "morality" is based on what ultimatly benefits the self, in other words selfishness. I think all morality should be based on that. I got this idea from Anton Szandor Lavey's archetypal "Satanism". I think all atheists should read up on archetypal Satanism. You don't have to become one but it certaintly is interesting and a good luck at morals.<BR/><BR/>*I think Taylor Hicks is better.<BR/>**I don't think masturbation is wrong. Humans have needs, it doesn't hurt anybody if you masturbate.<BR/>***I agree.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the long post.<BR/><BR/>-Loi PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165964691859983122006-12-12T15:04:00.000-08:002006-12-12T15:04:00.000-08:00I love that you just get it, Aaron. And congrads o...I love that you just get it, Aaron. And congrads on the love confession, that is so sweet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165959205113813892006-12-12T13:33:00.000-08:002006-12-12T13:33:00.000-08:00All "morality" is bullshit. Every moral axiom mus...All "morality" is bullshit. Every moral axiom must either be derived from other moral axioms, or just be arbitrarily made up. Just because we intuitively consider certain morals as self evident, such as autonomy this does not mean that they really are true, just that we have an urge to consider them such. We also have other urges such as sexual lust, which are not considered the foundations for morality. Why give preference to morals such as autonomy, or the golden rule? Being internally consistent does not make any moral system more valid either. Also, utilitarian arguments do not work, for actions to benefit the greater good, greater good must be defined. Good must also be based upon objective claims, which are also impossible to come by. Having a moral system is fine, but it must be realized that it is illogical, since it is based upon unproven claims. Nihilism is the natural extension of atheism!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165810842307982662006-12-10T20:20:00.000-08:002006-12-10T20:20:00.000-08:00Aaron,You clarifications make your argument better...Aaron,<BR/><BR/>You clarifications make your argument better. I'm thinking a bit about captialism and individualism, and whether they do produce a stronger society. I'm not very fond of them right now myself, but others keep telling me they are the best thing going out there. Hmmm....<BR/><BR/>I'm also wondering how you can build a entire ethical structure on self-ownership. I'll think more about it. You construct is welcome as well.<BR/><BR/>I'm also wondering how self-ownership evolves socio-culturally (is it really natural). It seems that self-ownership is a late-comer on the cultural scene. All systems pre-modern and some modern seemed to think the person was owned by someone else (god, king, community, etc).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165523135137622842006-12-07T12:25:00.000-08:002006-12-07T12:25:00.000-08:00Aaron,Thank you for your reply. Your answer to Pau...Aaron,<BR/>Thank you for your reply. Your answer to Paulkman was also very instructive.<BR/><BR/>AK: I guess I would need to see more fleshing out of a value based moral framework to give a better analysis of it<BR/><BR/>I'll try to do this for you. At the moment it is still very amorphous and experimental in my own mind. Ethics and moral philosophy are extremely important to me currently as a recent deconvert.<BR/><BR/>Before I do any fleshing out, could you answer one question? Why is the violation of self-ownership "immoral?" It seems to me primacy of sefl-ownership is a valuative concept. I'm curious what are the materialistic axioms or foundations of such a conclusion. I'm assuming the universality of self-ownership has some objective qualifications. I may be thinking upside down on this, not sure.<BR/><BR/>AK: I mean, values dont act. They dont cause things. Agents act. So agents, not values, are responsible for the morality of their actions. Values have no actions of their own to be responsible for!<BR/><BR/>I mostly agree with you regarding this. My intended point was that I wasn't sure if self-ownership could satisfactorily explain all actions which are considered im/moral. But even though it is agents who act, it may be that they act primarily as valuative beings. So in some sense, values act through agents. I don't claim any universality to any values (yet), only to valuation itself. This would probably be the natural axiom of a value based morality.<BR/><BR/>Once again, thank you for the clarifications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165518720533757712006-12-07T11:12:00.000-08:002006-12-07T11:12:00.000-08:00Agnosis,Thanks for an interseting article. Your in...Agnosis,<BR/><BR/><I>Thanks for an interseting article. Your interaction with Soulster and the civility of you both is something I greatly appreciate and strive for.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks! I couldnt do it without Soulster. Hes a very nice guy :)<BR/><BR/><I>As ryan's experience and ben's approach demonstrate, morality is one of the great (if not last) pillars of God's existence.</I><BR/><BR/>True. I think that it needs more attention from the atheist camp in order to further the hemmorhage of faith taking place in the West. <BR/><BR/><I>In addition to your distinction between conscious agent and existence, one between authority and absoluteness might be beneficial also. This may be similar to the Cartoon Universe analogy, and I apologize if so.<BR/><BR/>Even if God, as a conscious agent, were the "foundation" of morality, what we have is still only authority, and authority is subjective. It's a power game. If one wants to argue morality on natural law or absolutes, you still have existence as the basis. This position eventually boils down to Deism, not modern christian theism.</I><BR/><BR/>I likes!<BR/><BR/><I>I wonder if a non-theistic morality could be built on a theory of valuation instead of self-ownership. I know this has been written about and discussed plenty before, so I apologize in advance for my naivete. Self-ownership seems to be material/object oriented, and some morals not be very material/bject oriented. <BR/><BR/>As an illustration, it's a pretty moral thing to help an old lady across the street and somewhat "immoral" to push her into a puddle of water instead. A theory of morality based on valuation might better explain the different moral conclusions, especially if the old lady didn't get hurt but just wet.<BR/><BR/>The axiom of this type of system might be the reality of humans as valuative beings. That is a pretty universal reality, even if it takes on various forms. What say you?</I><BR/><BR/>Im not sure if a valuation theory of morality could be developed that would actually function properly in society. If values trump all, then murder becomes okay, as long as I value it, right? <BR/><BR/>Morality is about what is or is not a good action. Actions are committed by agents. We are agents. Agents commit actions based on their values. So it seems to me that having a value based moral framework, instead of an agent based moral framework, would be like putting the cart before the horse or something? <BR/><BR/>I mean, values dont act. They dont cause things. Agents act. So agents, not values, are responsible for the morality of their actions. Values have no actions of their own to be responsible for! <BR/><BR/>I guess I would need to see more fleshing out of a value based moral framework to give a better analysis of it, but at the moment it seems to me that logically we need to have a moral framework based on the natural, material properties of acting agents. They are individuals with specific identities and they are self-owning.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165518073745765882006-12-07T11:01:00.000-08:002006-12-07T11:01:00.000-08:00Paulkman,I really enjoyed this post. It really got...Paulkman,<BR/><BR/><I>I really enjoyed this post. It really got me thinking, which is really what this is all about, isn't it?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it is. Helping people think is a frequent pleasure of mine :)<BR/><BR/><I>My question for you is this: On what basis are you, a single conscious entity, choosing your basis for morality.</I><BR/><BR/>The fact that I AM a singular conscious entity, and that I own myself, just like all other singular conscious entities own themselves. This of course means that I dont own anybody else, and nobody else owns me. <BR/><BR/>In a nutshell, acting in accordance with the universal principle of self-ownership = moral, while violating it = immoral.<BR/><BR/>In actuality, I am not "choosing" my morality, but merely recognizing it. We dont "choose" for gravity to affect us, we recognize that it does. <BR/><BR/><I>You stated quite clearly that if there is a god, then he, as a single conscious entity would be arbitrary by nature of his consciousness.</I><BR/><BR/>Yup! Because he would be defining morality according to whatever whim he had.<BR/><BR/><I>You claim, however, that your choices are not arbitrary, despite the fact that you are in the same category as a god would be.</I><BR/><BR/>But I am not the creator of existence, of the universe, nor of logic. Similarly, I did not create the principles of morality, but merely recognized them in the same way that I recognize any property of the universe or rule of logic. <BR/><BR/><I>I'm quite happy with my arbitrary and culturally defined morality.</I><BR/><BR/>Your morality is not truly arbitrarily or culturally defined, although you may perceive it to be so, and act as if it is so. Paulkman, you cannot avoid the fact that you are a singular conscious self-owning sovereign entity. Any attempts by you to violate this truth through a culturally defined morality will fail; it will lead to harm.<BR/><BR/>What IS arbitrary and culturally defined, are values. Everybody has different values. You might like chocolate ice cream, and I might like strawberry. Those are values. But it is immoral for me to force you to eat strawberry ice cream just like its immoral for you to force me to eat chocolate ice cream, because it would be a violation of self-ownership. The violation of self-ownership occurs when one tries to force their values onto another. <BR/><BR/>Now lets look at a culturally defined "moral" decree. Christians mostly believe that homosexuality is immoral. Well, they are wrong. They dont get to "choose" what is moral or immoral. Homosexuality is not immoral, period. Why? Because it does not inherently bring with it the violation of self-ownership. Rape, however, IS immoral, and no culturally defined legitimization of rape is valid. Why? Because it is the violation of self-ownership. <BR/><BR/>Culturally and arbitrarily defined moral rules are by their nature incorrect. They are lies. They are someone else tryingto FORCE their values onto others. What if I were to declare chocolate ice cream "immoral" and outlaw it? That would, in itself, be immoral, but eating chocolate ice cream would never be immoral, no matter how many decrees were passed declaring it to be so. The only thing that could ever be immoral is the forcing of ones values onto another. Forcing people to accept anothers values (ice cream flavors, gay sex, straight sex, etc...) is immoral. <BR/><BR/>And those are the facts, jack :) <BR/><BR/>I hope that helps explain it for you. Got questions? I got answers!Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165517214962213082006-12-07T10:46:00.000-08:002006-12-07T10:46:00.000-08:00Soulster,I'm not sure this helps your case. For on...Soulster,<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not sure this helps your case. For one thing, some might accuse you of ethnocentrism (or if they are exagerators, racism). While you might get away with it in a nationalistic case, it would be easy for someone to say your making a comparison like " value ______ is why Anglos are stronger in America than Latinos and African-Americans." People will condemn your argument without consideration if they think you are saying something even remotely similar to this. </I><BR/><BR/>Well some people may jump to conclusions like this regarding what I said, but I think I can explain it a bit better. I oversimplified, but my statement was a cultural/ideological one. <BR/><BR/>And note that I said Chinese, not "asian." South Korea and Japan and Hong Kong are relatively more individualistic than China, and look at how much better their average citizen is prospering. This ties in to capitalism, which is individualistic in nature.<BR/><BR/><I>Second, the idea that America is "stronger" is no absolute, so it is not a good idea to use it as a proof for an absolute axiom. First, 'stronger' is interpretive, but rarely factual. Likewise, 'stronger' could be temporary, situational, or categorical. For example, suppose someone based a rule on the strength of the British Empire. Would that rule stand now that the Empire is in decline? What if some day China becomes "stronger" as far as global dominance, military, and economy as some political projections seem to indicate? Would that mean that your rule would give way? </I><BR/><BR/>I totally agree here. Again, I was oversimplifying. "Stronger" was meant in terms of average citizen prosperity and social security. One day, China could eclipse the US in this regard. But what could cause it to do so? Individualism and capitalism. Indeed, those are the two things that are making China climb up the economic and social status ladder right now. <BR/><BR/>All in all, your brought up good points Soulster in that comment and I mostly agree with you there.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165516890186863732006-12-07T10:41:00.000-08:002006-12-07T10:41:00.000-08:00Cay,This is your strongest post ever, Aaron.Wow, t...Cay,<BR/><BR/><I>This is your strongest post ever, Aaron.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow, thank you!! That means a lot to me! :)Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165504783147244872006-12-07T07:19:00.000-08:002006-12-07T07:19:00.000-08:00Aaron,Thanks for an interseting article. Your inte...Aaron,<BR/>Thanks for an interseting article. Your interaction with Soulster and the civility of you both is something I greatly appreciate and strive for.<BR/><BR/>As ryan's experience and ben's approach demonstrate, morality is one of the great (if not last) pillars of God's existence. In addition to your distinction between conscious agent and existence, one between authority and absoluteness might be beneficial also. This may be similar to the Cartoon Universe analogy, and I apologize if so.<BR/><BR/>Even if God, as a conscious agent, were the "foundation" of morality, what we have is still only authority, and authority is subjective. It's a power game. If one wants to argue morality on natural law or absolutes, you still have existence as the basis. This position eventually boils down to Deism, not modern christian theism.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if a non-theistic morality could be built on a theory of valuation instead of self-ownership. I know this has been written about and discussed plenty before, so I apologize in advance for my naivete. Self-ownership seems to be material/object oriented, and some morals not be very material/bject oriented.<BR/><BR/>As an illustration, it's a pretty moral thing to help an old lady across the street and somewhat "immoral" to push her into a puddle of water instead. A theory of morality based on valuation might better explain the different moral conclusions, especially if the old lady didn't get hurt but just wet.<BR/><BR/>The axiom of this type of system might be the reality of humans as valuative beings. That is a pretty universal reality, even if it takes on various forms. What say you?<BR/><BR/>AgnosisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165451784451334932006-12-06T16:36:00.000-08:002006-12-06T16:36:00.000-08:00Morality comes from within the person. "God" isn't...Morality comes from within the person. "God" isn't moral. Look at all the horrible things he lets get carried out in his name, all the terrible things he's just let go by. All the mass killings, etc. And god isn't even opposed to rape or slavery! I find god terribly immoral.<BR/><BR/>Great post, Aaron. Very insightful!Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859405216390259275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165381288245069242006-12-05T21:01:00.000-08:002006-12-05T21:01:00.000-08:00I really enjoyed this post. It really got me think...I really enjoyed this post. It really got me thinking, which is really what this is all about, isn't it?<BR/><BR/>My question for you is this: On what basis are you, a single conscious entity, choosing your basis for morality.<BR/><BR/>You stated quite clearly that if there is a god, then he, as a single conscious entity would be arbitrary by nature of his consciousness. You claim, however, that your choices are not arbitrary, despite the fact that you are in the same category as a god would be.<BR/><BR/>I'm quite happy with my arbitrary and culturally defined morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165371470664669782006-12-05T18:17:00.000-08:002006-12-05T18:17:00.000-08:00So why is the American "group" of people so much s...<I>So why is the American "group" of people so much stronger than the Chinese "group" of people? Because America did relatively more to secure the basic building blocks of the "group": the individuals.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure this helps your case. For one thing, some might accuse you of ethnocentrism (or if they are exagerators, racism). While you might get away with it in a nationalistic case, it would be easy for someone to say your making a comparison like " value ______ is why Anglos are stronger in America than Latinos and African-Americans." People will condemn your argument without consideration if they think you are saying something even remotely similar to this. <BR/><BR/>Second, the idea that America is "stronger" is no absolute, so it is not a good idea to use it as a proof for an absolute axiom. First, 'stronger' is interpretive, but rarely factual. Likewise, 'stronger' could be temporary, situational, or categorical. For example, suppose someone based a rule on the strength of the British Empire. Would that rule stand now that the Empire is in decline? What if some day China becomes "stronger" as far as global dominance, military, and economy as some political projections seem to indicate? Would that mean that your rule would give way? <BR/><BR/>It might also be hard to prove individualism is the source of American strenth. Many social theorists attribute our dominance to other causes -- some to the Protestant work ethic that is much more community-oriented then the American idea of individuals and publics.<BR/><BR/>Not that this causes you argument to colapse. It just gives your critics a foothold. I think it is stronger without it.<BR/><BR/>I think too, that it might be interesting for you to experiment with the terms 'community' and 'publics.' Some social theorist define a community as a group of people that consider the group the primary entity and see the self as the servant of group needs and social consciousness. It is required for the members to know each other intimately, share value and belief systems, etc. Publics, on the other hand, are aggregates that join forces to advance individual interests using group power and resources. It is not required for the members to know each other (though they might), association is usually voluntary, and values and beliefs are inconsequential unless they affect individual interests. You might say that most groups operate as publics in self-ownership. You might also go so far as to say you are skeptical of the reality of this definition of community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165371130773593812006-12-05T18:12:00.000-08:002006-12-05T18:12:00.000-08:00This is your strongest post ever, Aaron. People w...This is your strongest post ever, Aaron. People who argue for cultural relativism as proof that atheists can't have a true moral order have never considered why secular humanism works in terms of morality. Self-ownership does not mean selfishness. Of course we must work together to survive, but if we're not free from some arbitrary set of rules descended from humans 2000 years ago, we will still have slavery and other atrocities, won't we? If we think and judge for ourselves, won't it be an improvement on what's been going on up until now in terms of our moral sensibilities? We can only get better. Look at the past (and please leave political decisions in terms of war out of this)...cayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01640397448280121212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165364596506566832006-12-05T16:23:00.000-08:002006-12-05T16:23:00.000-08:00Soulster,Interesting post, Aaron.Thanks! Ill take ...Soulster,<BR/><BR/><I>Interesting post, Aaron.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks! Ill take that as a compliment :)<BR/><BR/><I>I also have tremendous respect for you fair-mindedness in our dialogue. We do, however, disagree perhaps on the nture of reality to some degree, namely that I am more relativistic, as you correctly pointed out, especially when it comes to humans.</I><BR/><BR/>Totally. At least we can agree to disagree in a respectful fashion... its so rare nowadays with this whole theism vs. atheism war thats raging. Im trying to be as fair minded as possible with you, because you are so fair minded yourself. Im big on reciprocity :)<BR/><BR/><I>One thing I should clarify is my usage of 'moral'. I am using it, most of the time, in the anthropological sense. Then it relates to 'mores' which are culturally defined rules. Based on this definition, we would differ on how universal morality could be. I would say it can only be universal as cultures are similar.</I><BR/><BR/>Ahhhh, thank you for pointing that out. Ill have to keep that in mind, since usually when Im talking about morality its not in an anthropological sense. <BR/><BR/><I>Have you considered that basing a moral system on self-ownership is cultural in itself?</I><BR/><BR/>Ive considered it, but I eventually rejected it. Accepting a spherical earth, or the law of gravity, is not a culturally-relative thing to do in my opinion. Learning the rules of math, and discovering htat addition equals the sum of all sperate numbers, is not culturally relative in my opinion. <BR/><BR/><I>Someone might point out that Western Individualism holds the individual over the group, thus our social theory is based primarily on publics, but this is by no means universal.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree that culturally, it is not universally recognized. But a little over a year ago I learned that only individuals exist as acting, conscious agents. Let me put it this way: a group doesnt act, or get hurt, or think, or feel emotions. The Baptist Church doesnt feel pain, or want things, or have values, or make decisions and commit to actions. Rather, it is individuals cooperating on these desires, actions, and thoughts. But a collection of individuals is not a singular, conscious, acting entity. It is merely a <STRONG>collection</STRONG> of individual, singular, conscious, acting entities. <BR/><BR/>Bottom line is that groups are concepts and categories, nothing more. Morality can only be applied to acting agents, which are individuals. <BR/><BR/>Can one logically convict "Ford Motor Company" of a crime? Legally, yes, but logically, no. Maybe the CEO, or maybe many FoMoCo. representatives, but you cant put "Ford Motor Company" in jail. You cant put "Ford Motor Company" in handcuffs. It exists only legally, and even then only for convenience. It is, for the most part, just a categorical concept used to identify individuals who are cooperating on making cars and raking in dough.<BR/><BR/><I>For example, I married into an Asian family.</I><BR/><BR/>Hey, thats awesome! You may not believe this, but just last Saturday night I confessed to my Japanese girlfriend that I had fallen in love with her. :)<BR/><BR/><I>In most Asian cultures, the basic moral principle is what is good for the group (which is only a subset of a self-ownership structure). Recent scientific discoverys on how much humans are social animals might show that group benefit and not self-ownership is a deeper natural axiom.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe, but I would likely contend those kinds of findings. Truly, what is good for a group can ONLY be good for it if it is good for all the individuals in that group. Ever hear the analogy of the bundle of sticks? Or the analogy of the chain? <BR/><BR/>A stick alone is weak, but bundled together, they are strong. And a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.<BR/><BR/>So how do we give groups strentgh, legitimacy, and cohesiveness? By securing the FOUNDATION that those groups are comprised of, or based on. Namely, the individuals. You cant have a secure group if, to attain it, you sacrifice the security of the individuals. <BR/><BR/>So why is the American "group" of people so much stronger than the Chinese "group" of people? Because America did relatively more to secure the basic building blocks of the "group": the individuals. <BR/><BR/>Make each link in the chain strong. Links come first, the chain comes later. Individuals come first, or the group doesnt come at all.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165363855981280442006-12-05T16:10:00.000-08:002006-12-05T16:10:00.000-08:00I must say, it is rather unusual to insist that na...I must say, it is rather unusual to insist that natural laws are arbitrary and that only by basing ones framework on a conscious acting agent can one avoid the arbitrary trap. Dont you think so Ben?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165363716557993992006-12-05T16:08:00.000-08:002006-12-05T16:08:00.000-08:00Hi Ben, Thanks for the response! You said:This is ...Hi Ben, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the response! <BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>This is called natural law theology and is and has been the cornerstone of Catholic moral theology for the last 1500 or so years, at least.</I><BR/><BR/>Ummm, this is confusing to me. You see, I am currently pawing through the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the PJPII version), and its basically saying that morality is defined by God, as revealed in scripture and as transmitted through the living church. <BR/><BR/>Where can I find info on Catholicism basing morality on natural law? <BR/><BR/>And more importantly, since Catholicism states that God created the universe, then isnt this just a proxy foundation, and that the REAL catholic morality fondation is in Gods decree? <BR/><BR/><I>The idea is that the universe, created by God, has the moral law already written into it.</I><BR/><BR/>A cartoon universe, yes. This statement falls into the arbitrary trap.<BR/><BR/><I>The problem with your moral system is that it's not a firm foundation at all, but only a very good but still very arbitraty selection by a subjective being (i.e. you).</I><BR/><BR/>I didnt "select" it. Humans, at best, can only discover natural laws, not select or make them. Is gravity arbitrary just like my allegedly abritrary morality is?<BR/><BR/><I>Conciousness is prior to our existance--and you're right, the reason I belive this is because God exists prior to his creation.</I><BR/><BR/>God existed prior to existence, huh? Im sorry Ben, but I must respectfully state that you have it exactly backwards. <BR/><BR/><I>By the way, the Cartoon Universe metaphor is itself a bad cartoon of theology. It's pretty far off the mark as far as what most theists believe about the way God works.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course its off the mark as far as what most theists believe about the way God works. But that is irrelevant, because ones beliefs, or even the popularity of those beliefs, have no bearing on the actual facts. <BR/><BR/>And the fact is that if a conscious entity created all of existence, then the universe is nihilistic in nature and subject to the creators every whim. Do you deny this?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165362554915615712006-12-05T15:49:00.000-08:002006-12-05T15:49:00.000-08:00Interesting post, Aaron.I also have tremendous res...Interesting post, Aaron.<BR/><BR/>I also have tremendous respect for you fair-mindedness in our dialogue. We do, however, disagree perhaps on the nture of reality to some degree, namely that I am more relativistic, as you correctly pointed out, especially when it comes to humans.<BR/><BR/>One thing I should clarify is my usage of 'moral'. I am using it, most of the time, in the anthropological sense. Then it relates to 'mores' which are culturally defined rules. Based on this definition, we would differ on how universal morality could be. I would say it can only be universal as cultures are similar.<BR/><BR/>Have you considered that basing a moral system on self-ownership is cultural in itself? Someone might point out that Western Individualism holds the individual over the group, thus our social theory is based primarily on publics, but this is by no means universal. For example, I married into an Asian family. In most Asian cultures, the basic moral principle is what is good for the group (which is only a subset of a self-ownership structure). Recent scientific discoverys on how much humans are social animals might show that group benefit and not self-ownership is a deeper natural axiom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1165359737380085102006-12-05T15:02:00.000-08:002006-12-05T15:02:00.000-08:00"I don't know if it ever occurred to Ben that the ..."I don't know if it ever occurred to Ben that the only solid foundation that one can appeal to is the nature of existence itself? "<BR/><BR/>This is called natural law theology and is and has been the cornerstone of Catholic moral theology for the last 1500 or so years, at least. <BR/><BR/>The idea is that the universe, created by God, has the moral law already written into it. <BR/><BR/>The problem with your moral system is that it's <EM>not</EM> a firm foundation at all, but only a very good but still very arbitraty selection by a subjective being (i.e. you). <BR/><BR/>Conciousness <EM>is</EM> prior to our existance--and you're right, the reason I belive this is because God exists prior to his creation. <BR/><BR/>By the way, the Cartoon Universe metaphor is itself a bad cartoon of theology. It's pretty far off the mark as far as what most theists believe about the way God works.bgeorge77https://www.blogger.com/profile/14524051055544962510noreply@blogger.com