Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: I think you've overlooked some crucial stuff here...
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=32291&mesg_id=32438
32438, RE: I think you've overlooked some crucial stuff here...
Posted by moot_point, Sat May-21-05 09:39 AM
>>But remember I also wrote that emotion
>>dictates much of our thought.
>
>But judging by our earlier agreement, I would assume then that
>you also agree that some emotions correlate to objective,
>existing moral facts?


Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of pedantry). I think that emotions largely correspond with the existence of (loosely uniform) subjective impulses.


>>For example, if a community is
>>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive.
>This
>>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>>emotional thing to do.
>
>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and that
>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?


But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.



>>This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of
>>emotional reasoning.
>
>Um, which analogy? I don't believe I've overlooked this.
>I've merely pointed out that ONLY if objective moral values
>exist do "emotions" have ANY valid reason for entering into
>the deliberative process. No? (This is another mutation of
>the statement "reason will not take you to morality").


The Hitler/activist analogy.

I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!



>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking about
>the perceived, not the perception.


What is the difference?


>
>>There can be validity
>>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and
>a
>>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance,
>both
>>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>>each individual's capabilities to make subjective
>assessments.
>
>
>No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about
>"whether the light was on or not". We are talking about the
>perceived, not the perception.
>
>>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion
>that
>>is more valid.
>
>No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than
>changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is
>objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.



I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a subjective concept.



>>I disagree
>>with the notion that religious activism is any different.
>You
>>keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.
>
>
>Cause you're not observing that in the case of the "relativist
>versus the religious activist"... the first is dogmatically
>imposing HIS OWN subjective moral notion, and the latter is
>appealing to what is objectively, right for ALL men.
>
>This is plain as night and day, and if you don't see it, I'm
>wondering if we really did make any progress on that first
>point or not.
>
>No doubt you'll say this... "Yes of course I see that, but
>SINCE the religious activist has no grounds for assuming that
>his particular religous notion is the one corresponding to
>what is objectively right in the world, he's STILL merely
>asserting his own dogmatic opinion over others".
>
>To that I answer this:
>
>There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called moral
>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God is
>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS
>He showed them.
>
>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>"Is there reason to believe He has?"
>
>
>(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised,
>that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of science
>is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the
>antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of
>amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they
>don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea
>what they're talking about)


This is the way I look at it.

Faith and objectivity are bedfellows.

Both both religion and science seek to discover the truth; to discover meaning. Derrida has this concept called 'differance'. In response to structuralist arguments relating to language he stressed that there is no 'meaning' in the sense that we have always
understood it. For example, if we trace the maening of a word in a dictionary we encounter an infinite deferment of meaning. If we look up any word, it will use other words to define it, so in this sense true meaning is elusive.

Scientists search for meaning. They rely upon the uniformity principle, the belief that what happened in the physical world yesterday will determine what will happen tomorrow. If you trace this so-called 'objectivity' back via the regression of causes then, the scientist must have faith in an infinite regression ( or some bigbang-type variation of it). In this sense, truth or meaning is elusive. Searching for that ever elusive cause is like searching for that ever elusive word in the dictionary. That's where faith comes in.

The same applies to religion. Truth is defined by faith.

But for me, objectivity is faith is dogma.