cnn: Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

[alexey]

Are you saying science can explain why others find it immoral?

So?

Science can also explain why the psycopath doesn't find it immoral.

That doesn't make one side actually immoral and the other not.

No more than science can explain why some fault caused a deadly earthquake and another had a series of small, but not damaging earthquakes doesn't make one fault immoral and the other not.

Look, I'm done. As stupidmorals pointed out, we've essentially had the same discussion before.

Your not saying anything new and my responses aren't new.

You just don't seem to get that picking an arbitrary goal isn't moving you towards anything other than an arbitrary goal, and based on evolution and science, you have no reason to pick a particular goal over any other (other than it is what seems right to YOU).

If you actually want to argue you aren't picking a goal without any real reason (there is no science or reason behind your selelction other than it seems right to YOU), I'd love to see you do it, but you always step away from that argument and go in a different direction.

You can see here already, we're already going back to the same place. techboy and are both mking the point to you that you are picking something w/o any real reason for picking it other than you want to.

If you want to actually assert, my goal is X and science says that is the right goal by Z reasons or even I would use was science to figure out if that was the right goal by Z process, then let me know. Otherwise I'm done.

Look at how many times in this thread I've posed a simple question, and sometimes you've even started to act like you had answers, and then changed the subject.

And note because the majority of the human race currently has a certain response to a certain situation doesn't mean that long term that is or should be the evolutionary out come for the human race. Evolution doesn't work through a democratic system. Heck, it doesn't even mean that RIGHT NOW that is the most fit state.

I thought that we were getting somewhere when we reached some form of agreement about uncertainty here and our inability to know for sure that decisions that we make are good.

Let me ask you a question in an honest attempt to understand your approach to morality. As you may have read there was recently a tragic accident in MD where a drunk adolescent caused an accident in which some of his friends were killed. Tell me what is a moral thing for us to do in this case?

[PeterMP]

I thought that we were getting somewhere when we reached some form of agreement about uncertainty here and our inability to know for sure that decisions that we make are good.

Let me ask you a question in an honest attempt to understand your approach to morality. As you may have read there was recently a tragic accident in MD where a drunk adolescent caused an accident in which some of his friends were killed. Tell me what is a moral thing for us to do in this case?

My approach to morality in most cases, including this one from what you've described, is I don't know.

I don't claim to have answers that are very satisfying, especially not to others.

I know what works for me and that's largely through going through the process and even then I frequently don't come up w/ a satisfying answer, and that's it, and I've never had such a car accident or really been involved in such a car accident in any sort of manner, and I'm happy that I haven't because I don't know what my response would be.

I'm very happy about the moral diliemas I have been lucky to avoid in my life.

You really seem to have me confused w/ somebody that has claimed I have answers.

[stupidmorals]

Now you're back to "proving" that strawberry ice cream is the "best" flavor by pointing to brain scans that show that people eating strawberry ice cream have more pleasure centers engaged than those eating chocolate, and that strawberry uses more taste buds, and that polls indicate more people choose strawberry.

BULL****! Nothing is better than chocolate! You Strawberry-believing idiots and your brain freeze addled concepts of objective-flavor dependent upon dairy dessert evolution! What utter nonsense! Clearly, chocolate : black :: vanilla : white :: strawberry : indians :: rocky road : mole people. And as we all know from the Great Flavor Pamphlet of Baskin Robbins: once you go black, you never go back. This obviously means that chocolate is the far superior ice cream flavor and we should eliminate all of these false prophets from the menu. Especially anything with peanut butter in it, that's ****ing gross. Unless it's Reese's peanut butter cups, those are cool. And Rocky Road can stay, because we can't afford to displease either the mole people or Weird Al. I get that song stuck in my head, like, all the time, and the world wouldn't make any sense if the flavor ceased to exist. But all of those other charlatan flavors can go melt in the comfortable room temperatures of ice cream Hell!

Oh, wait, I think I may have missed your initial point...

Largely, yes, but look at this one...

Our friend Prosperity has changed more than his username.

Oh, sweet, I can extend my procrastination even more by reading this thread?! I'm on it!

[RVAbrendan]

On morality - apologies for not reading the entire thread. Why is morality being tied into religion?

All you need is the 'Golden Rule'.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but it's honestly how I live my life, and is a concept that existed before monotheism.

[alexey]

My approach to morality in most cases, including this one from what you've described, is I don't know.

I don't claim to have answers that are very satisfying, especially not to others.

I know what works for me and that's largely through going through the process and even then I frequently don't come up w/ a satisfying answer, and that's it, and I've never had such a car accident or really been involved in such a car accident in any sort of manner, and I'm happy that I haven't because I don't know what my response would be.

I'm very happy about the moral diliemas I have been lucky to avoid in my life.

You really seem to have me confused w/ somebody that has claimed I have answers.

I think my response would be very close to that.

Let's pick a moral question on which you may be in position to provide some thoughts. How should we treat criminals?

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 04:03 PM ----------

On morality - apologies for not reading the entire thread. Why is morality being tied into religion?

All you need is the 'Golden Rule'.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but it's honestly how I live my life, and is a concept that existed before monotheism.

Watch out for people saying that the Golden Rule fails with those who are into S&M

[Prosperity]

Largely, yes, but look at this one...

Our friend Prosperity has changed more than his username.

I remember that one, it was an epic thread

[alexey]

This is not a logistical problem in the slightest.

If naturalism is true, there is no objective standard by which we can separate the worth of one proposed system of morality from another, and we might as well use religion as not.

If naturalism is not correct, then we've got some work to do, but we can start from our common moral intuition, reason, and whatever evidence might exist for the competing religious claims, and there's at least the theoretical possibility of getting the right answer.

This is what you say, but this is not how you behave.


Science can provide a theory as to why other people think of his actions as wrong. Science cannot tell us why his actions are wrong, or why he ought not do them.


Now you're back to "proving" that strawberry ice cream is the "best" flavor by pointing to brain scans that show that people eating strawberry ice cream have more pleasure centers engaged than those eating chocolate, and that strawberry uses more taste buds, and that polls indicate more people choose strawberry.

You can measure the brain activity of people that are doing something society considers "good", and you can find, for example, that the brain releases oxycontin in those scenarios, but there is no instrument science has yet devised that tells us what someone ought to do.

To be precise, though, I am not exactly defining objective in relation to God. I am asserting that absent God (or at least some form of theism), objective morals and duties cannot exist.

This is an especially relevant point in this discussion, because it was you that initially made the claim that secular morality is superior to religious morality, which puts the burden of proof on you.

It is not up to PeterMP or me or Prosperity to prove that religion is right, or even that objective morals and duties exist. It is up to you to demonstrate that your assertion is true, and that your proposed system of morality is better than Catholicism, for example.

The ironic thing is that in order for you to prove your point, you'd have to establish objective morals and duties exist (which is the only way to get "better" as more than an opinion like ice cream flavor preference), and this would pretty much defeat the naturalism you seem to hold to.

I understand how a model which relies on God stops working when you remove God from it.

The model has objective morals grounded in God - no God, no objective morals.

The model has right/wrong defined by God - no God, no right/wrong.

The model has standards of proof that only God can meet - no God, no ability to prove anything.

I am proposing a different model. You will not be able to make sense of this God-free model unless you internalize all of its aspects and try to understand how it works.


Interestingly enough, I think that I am the one fighting against moral relativism here. I am the one highlighting the danger of disagreements between people who think that they have a divine mandate.

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 04:46 PM ----------

I'd like to get your opinion on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

[Jumbo]

I agree with much of what (not all) Peter has said in his recent posts, especially about the over-view of the matter as it stands right now (and Peter, the "why/why not" questions you asked were not ones I think are any less valid to address just because I focused on another one---and Prosperity, you sort of just re-stated the existence of what I had already observed in my question without really addressing the actual question itself, and that's cool) I decided to make this my last post in this thread (I hear you, you wiseasses).

There's a few reasons, including the repetition of past times (I have said much in friendly appreciative exchanges with TB in his first couple years on the board about having had these discussions so often at such depth in such fine company over so many years that I just often read more than not), the mix of statements that aren't sound products of formal logical that get presented among those that are, and which I hate to pull out and address one by one depending on who's doing them and their tone and my mood ), and the fact that some things I feel would be appropriate to say as an argument but would likely be more negative in overall result than positive (in such a matter as this and with people I respect) so I try to avoid that if I can't think (or just don't have the will/energy/motivation) of a way to do it to my satisfaction. Because I care.

So my last comments will include sort of a version of the religious theme of "We can't always understand God" or "a being like God has abilities and a nature so beyond ours" and part of those comments intent embrace the nature of moral relativism and challenging questions of the strengths/weaknesses (in argument) in models or constructs of "moral living" that validly exist for both sides, and has, despite some claims to the contrary of those who think they objectively or logically "settled it" one way or the other, past or present, for centuries.

While the core tenets of Christianity may represent a "closed system" in many ways, intellectually capable Christians' abilities to cognitively elaborate arguments, applying their credibility in the face of skepticism whether science-driven or other agenda-driven, in increasing complexity, remains an active matter that has yet to hit a brick wall--even if there are such bottom lines they hold that don't allow for refutation via any argument. Dismissing them however for any " religious origin" is neither fair in principle or intellectually valid in any form of serious discussion. Those origins merit the most serious respect and consideration in almost all such discussions and it has been earned.

That underlined part is important. Now what I stated a bit ago about some of my comments being similar to the old "God's ways are mysterious" theme refers to the idea that just as science (to use alexy's chosen institution v Christianity) can explain many things to much more of an accepted extent than it could just 200 years ago, so to is it true that we will likely be able to explain even much, much more 2000 years from now. Paralleling what I think Peter inferred, that personal "belief" aside, I don't think we are anywhere near to "settling" this argument (or many similar arguments) either way with either logical (in the formal sense) or complete intellectual integrity (even if there are those for whom it is settled belief-wise and/or spiritually) among the many intelligent and fair-minded people in the differing camps to this point.

I do contend there certainly exists a strong enough case right now to argue a secular claim for the current state of "moral realities" in every way that matches any level of validity to any religious claim and of course, to my reading/listening/watching such has been done many times in many venues over many years--a stalemate more or less. Neither side yet has a clear win here except in the minds of some of either side's more entrenched adherents.

I have a leaning based on it all to date and my never-ending examinations of the matter, and it is to the secular. Never would I rule out the "other" at this time, and though I will diagree that either side has "proven" anything, and I see formal logic and more general arguments abused regularly by both sides in the process (nor do I think formal argumentative /philosophical logic is the be-all end-all on it--it is just a very useful and valid tool in examination). I am also "guilty" at times of doing most everything I am noting here, though I have decades of practice in striving to do otherwise, both professionally involving two careers that demand it for best results, and personally valuing objectivity/fairness/critical thinking/ and having accurate information as powerfully desired qualities that should be exercised as vigorously as the body since I was a fairly young man.

In the end, I find another serious personal limitation in this venue to be my keyboard skills---they suck beyond belief, and typing is an ordeal for me (I sometimes suspect TB has many of his repeated and lengthy dissertations saved in doc form out of experiecne, updated and filed under some system so he can go to it and pull one out for the proper occasion ). One major reason my posts (and my professional writings when using a keyboard) are often either quite brief or very lengthy is I hate typing so much that I either don't get into it, or once committed I want to get everything out at one time.

Some subjects of course, exacerbate my shortcomings (in every way) more than others.

[Prosperity]

this is what I said:

"As far as why people do good w/o faith in God, a number of sources: imitation, reflection, experience, and a God given intuition."

that answers your question

[Passepartout]

Well hope she does sue as people that get pregnant these days get fired. As they need to sue either to get their job back or settle with them with money. Really it ain't right!

[Jumbo]

this is what I said:

"As far as why people do good w/o faith in God, a number of sources: imitation, reflection, experience, and a God given intuition."

that answers your question

My response to you meant to have covered that even that was a repetition of what I had already stated earlier in the post, where I identified that basic answer as a common response to such questions in the past (and a response I find a self-affirming argument). I guess I should have said more clearly, rather than think it automatically assumed, that I was wondering is there would be something different someone would add. I should have been more clear. I appreciate your time and effort in even reading the damn thing.

[PeterMP]

I(I sometimes suspect TB has many of his repeated and lengthy dissertations saved in doc form out of experiecne, updated and filed under some system so he can go to it and pull one out for the proper occasion )

Hey, don't knock it. I have a file related to climate change links and studies and comments that I keep.

[Jumbo]

Hey, don't knock it. I have a file related to climate change links and studies and comments that I keep.

Oh, I'm not knocking it. I am both admiring of it and frustrated with yet another example of how I make life harder on myself with some of my choices.

I also need to thoroughly edit long-ass posts like these at least 10 times before I hit enter instead of wearing out or losing patience after 3-4 edits.

[PeterMP]

I think my response would be very close to that.

Let's pick a moral question on which you may be in position to provide some thoughts. How should we treat criminals?

We should carry out scientific studies and determine what treatment causes the least repeat offenders.

EXCEPT that wouldn't have ANY basis in evolution or science in terms of being "good" or "bad". I don't know and we will never know the "correct" evolutionary out come for humans. It might be that criminals are on the path to the survival of the human species- though I'm not sure that's actually "good". It would be interesting to consult the dodo bird

You just don't get it. Evolution, for no species, including humans, has an "objective". There is no good or bad or progress. Just surviving. What you want to get at is this behavior this "direction" is good. Long term that's going to lead you down the path of social darwinism, but it isn't real. There is no good or bad.

It is appearant, you're not going to get it in this thread and so for now I give up. I AM DONE.


Didn't expect that answer did you?

[techboy]

[/COLOR]I'd like to get your opinion on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

As always, I am happy to provide my opinion.

Sam Harris is a good speaker, and so was able to hold my attention for twenty plus minutes, and yet in all that time, I did not hear a single argument that addressed or overcame the multitude of objections that have been raised to your own proposed approach.

He did not, for example, in any way establish how we can get from what is (determinable by science) to what ought to be, apart from a little "it's obvious to us" type stuff for about 30 seconds at the beginning, and as Prosperity pointed out, this is something that Hume showed hundreds of years ago couldn't be done. He spent 30 seconds setting an arbitrary standard for "good" as "maximizing human flourishing", then spent 22 minutes explaining how we could measure that, but the problem is he couldn't/wouldn't give us a foundation for why human flourishing is to be considered "good", though he used a lot of non-moral terms as substitutes in an attempt to hijack the language of objective morals and duties, much as PeterMP has continually challenged you on terms like "progress" and "advancement" over the various threads we have discussed this.

Rather than spend my time rehashing all the problems with your approach (and that of Sam Harris... and many have more or less been covered in the various threads), let's go to two philosophers (one Christian, one atheist) and a scientist (also atheist) for an overview of the multitude of problems with Harris' approach:

First, William Lane Craig (the Christian analytic philosopher, of course) succinctly explains why it doesn't fly, in under 5 minutes no less.



And now the atheist philosopher, Massimo Pigliucci tells us About Sam Harris’ claim that science can answer moral questions A couple of excerpts:

First, as Prosperity noted...

Harris begins with a rather startling claim: “The separation between science and human values is an illusion,” adding “facts and values seem to belong to different spheres [but] This is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of facts. They are facts about the well beings of conscious creatures.” This is a frontal assault on what in philosophy is known as the naturalistic fallacy, the idea — introduced by David Hume — that one cannot directly derive values (what ought to be) from facts (what is).

and then...

These examples could be joined by many others making the same point: if we let empirical facts decide what is right and what is wrong, then new scientific findings may very well “demonstrate” that things like slavery, corporal punishment, repression of gays, limited freedom of women, and so on, are “better” and therefore more moral than liberal-progressive types such as Harris and myself would be ready to concede. The difference is that I wouldn’t have a problem rejecting such findings — just as I don’t have a problem condemning social Darwinism and eugenics — but Harris would find himself in a bind. Indeed, he seems to be making a categorical mistake: what he calls values are instead empirical facts about how to achieve human well being. But why value individual human well being, or the well being of self-aware organisms, to begin with? Facts are irrelevant to that question.

Of course, I am in complete agreement that our sense of morality is an instinct that derives from our biological history, and that our moral reasoning is carried out by certain areas of the brain. But neither of these conclusions make evolutionary biology or neurobiology arbiters of moral decision making. Of course we do moral reasoning with the brain, just like we solve mathematical problems with the brain. Is Harris going to suggest that neurobiology will supersede mathematics? Of course our basic sense of morality has its roots in having evolved as social primates, but so do xenophobia, homophobia, and a bunch of other human characteristics that are not moral and that we don’t want to encourage.

...and from Physicist Sean Carroll in his The Moral Equivalent of the Parallel Postulate:

Let’s grant the factual nature of the claim that primates are exposed to a greater range of happiness and suffering than insects or rocks. So what? That doesn’t mean we should care about their suffering or happiness; it doesn’t imply anything at all about morality, how we ought to feel, or how to draw the line between right and wrong.

Morality and science operate in very different ways. In science, our judgments are ultimately grounded in data; when it comes to values we have no such recourse. If I believe in the Big Bang model and you believe in the Steady State cosmology, I can point to the successful predictions of the cosmic background radiation, light element nucleosynthesis, evolution of large-scale structure, and so on. Eventually you would either agree or be relegated to crackpot status. But what if I believe that the highest moral good is to be found in the autonomy of the individual, while you believe that the highest good is to maximize the utility of some societal group? What are the data we can point to in order to adjudicate this disagreement? We might use empirical means to measure whether one preference or the other leads to systems that give people more successful lives on some particular scale — but that’s presuming the answer, not deriving it. Who decides what is a successful life? It’s ultimately a personal choice, not an objective truth to be found simply by looking closely at the world. How are we to balance individual rights against the collective good? You can do all the experiments you like and never find an answer to that question.

All of these objections sound familiar, don't they?

Sam Harris doesn't (can't) answer any of these effectively, and I have yet to see you do so either. My rejection of your assertion is not, as you suggest, due to a lack of understanding of the idea. It's because it doesn't work.

I have a leaning based on it all to date and my never-ending exterminations of the matter,

I'm using you in my next moral argument hypothetical.

(I sometimes suspect TB has many of his repeated and lengthy dissertations saved in doc form out of experiecne, updated and filed under some system so he can go to it and pull one out for the proper occasion ).

I don't, actually, but I have been known to cut and paste myself.

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 08:55 PM ----------

Well hope she does sue as people that get pregnant these days get fired. As they need to sue either to get their job back or settle with them with money. Really it ain't right!

Huh? This discussion is about possible foundations of objective morals and duties. If you keep going off topic, I'm reporting you to the moderators!