Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?

[Hume]

Your thread is about Socrates.

Socrates is only a character in Plato's dialogues, and therefore represents Plato in a very substantial way.

Your OP implies we should look to Socrates as our teacher.

Socrates/Plato rejected the moral relativism of the Sophists, because Plato believed truth, justice, beauty, virtue were objectively real and eternal, and we could discover their ideal forms through the dialectic process.

No, about public philosophy.

 

[Hume]

Your thread is about Socrates.

Socrates is only a character in Plato's dialogues, and therefore represents Plato in a very substantial way.

Your OP implies we should look to Socrates as our teacher.

Socrates/Plato rejected the moral relativism of the Sophists, because Plato believed truth, justice, beauty, virtue were objectively real and eternal, and we could discover their ideal forms through the dialectic process.

Ok, and I don't agree with Plato. Most philosophers of ethics don't agree with Plato.

 

[Cypress]

Huh??? Where do you get your cartoon views of science? You act as if psychology is somehow completely divorced from psychiatry and neurology.

Explain precisely how quarks, electrons, electrochemical signals in our mind produce rich and complex purely abstract and transcendent ethical, artistic, mathematical ideas in a mind.

 

[Cypress]

Ok, and I don't agree with Plato. Most philosophers of ethics don't agree with Plato.

That's why I said moral relativists might be correct, but I don't find it at all appealing in an existential sense.

I would like to believe that Hitler was objectively wrong. Not just that it's my opinion he was wrong

 

[Hume]

That's why I said moral relativists might be correct, but I don't find it at all appealing in an existential sense.

I would like to believe that Hitler was objectively wrong. Not just that it's my opinion he was wrong

I never advocated moral relativism.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

Here are three ethical systems philosophers discuss:

Deontology: Ethical in itself. Kantian.
Utilitarian: Consequence of action. Usefulness.
Virtue: List of virtues. Aristotelian.

You are arguing for deontology.

utilititarianism tends towards materialism, elitism and finally slavery.....



what use is a cripple, alas, a christian morality values him still...

utilitarianism tends toward nazi nihilism.

 

[Obtenebrator]

Explain precisely how quarks, electrons, electrochemical signals in our mind produce rich and complex purely abstract and transcendent ethical, artistic, mathematical ideas in a mind.

The brain is a physical object. Sorry to break it to you. It is impacted by physical things and forms physical neuron connections which make up the content of our brains. It is formed through the chemicals it receives and interacts with as well as the things the person experiences in their lifetime.

Do you honestly think thoughts come from some supernatural source?

 

[Obtenebrator]

That's why I said moral relativists might be correct, but I don't find it at all appealing in an existential sense.

You keep expressing your "wishes" as to how reality works as if your wishes were somehow controlling of how reality works.


I will say this (so you can ignore it as usual) but I'm personally of the opinion that morality is a manifestation of rules that really only apply to social creatures (like humans) and which help stabilize the social network. I am not saying it is purely relative to each person but rather that it is relative only to those animals to whom stable social networks are a survival advantage.

As such I'm not a moral relativist but by the same token I do not see morality as anything particularly "objective" in any rational sense of the word (ie NOT universal but rather specific to only a few creatures on earth).

When you keep trotting out the example of Hitler you miss the point. In my version of morality Hitler is still wrong. What he did was destabilize the social network by murdering millions of innocent people. Stalin the same. These things make human existence LESS SAFE and MORE DANGEROUS so it is easy to say what they did was wrong despite how popular Hitler might have been to his fans.

 

[Obtenebrator]

I would like to believe that Hitler was objectively wrong. Not just that it's my opinion he was wrong

Hitler was wrong. But only relative to humans. If there was a "Hitler" of Bonobos who was gathering other bonobos to viciously murder innocent bonobos I doubt very highly you would call it a "moral issue". Even though it is EXACTLY the same thing.

Are you going to then argue that Bonobos don't have a "soul" and hence don't have a sense of moral right and wrong? Or are you going to argue that bonobos inherently lack the brain structure to know a good action from a bad action? What is your response to this other than to express incredulity that another great ape on the planet is somehow incapable of every jot and tittle of what it means to know right from wrong?

None of those arguments are things you can provide one scrap of evidence in support of. You can't know what a bonobo knows or thinks, you don't know exactly what part(s) of the brain are necessary to know right from wrong and you can't provide any evidence for a "soul".

Every argument you will make will be relative ONLY TO HUMANS based on your chauvanism for human capacity. Your argument is literally the exact same thing as the religious holy rollers claiming humans are specially endowed by God to know right from wrong.

 

[Cypress]

The brain is a physical object. Sorry to break it to you. It is impacted by physical things and forms physical neuron connections which make up the content of our brains. It is formed through the chemicals it receives and interacts with as well as the things the person experiences in their lifetime.

Do you honestly think thoughts come from some supernatural source?

Thanks for admitting you cannot fundamentally explain the root causes of human abstract and transcendental beliefs, nor why it is unique to humans. Just waving your arms and hollering about neurons is not an explanation.

I can't explain human conciousness and abstract thought. We don't even have a science yet that can.

Word games and arm waving aside, you're still left clinging to the conundrum of moral relativism. According to your theory of moral relativism, it's just your opinion that Hitler's psychological thought process was wrong.

I'm looking for people who have the belief system to be able to say Hitler was objectively wrong for all time and all place.

 

[Obtenebrator]

Thanks for admitting

Please stop this dishonest thing about "thanks for admitting". It is really beneath most people with half an education.

you cannot fundamentally explain the root causes of human abstract and transcendental beliefs, nor why it is unique to humans. Just waving your arms and hollering about neurons is not an explanation.

I think I did.

Do you think your thoughts come from outside your brain?

I can't explain human conciousness and abstract thought. We don't even have a science yet that can.

We have a lot more than you will give credit to. There's a ton of brain imaging using fMRI and PET scans which give us a great deal of insight into the more abstract aspects to human cognition.

Word games and arm waving aside, you're still left clinging to the conundrum of moral relativism. According to your theory of moral relativism, it's just your opinion that Hitler's psychological thought process was wrong.

Are you really incapable of reading what I write? Do I need to drop the reading level of my posts to something more in the elementary school region? I honestly am surprised at a man who claims to have read so extensively but when I see you read my posts I see you are incapable of even SIMPLE understanding.

Virtually NOTHING I"ve said seems to ever make it to your critiques. You always critique things you made up about my position but aren't really part of my position.

I'm looking for people who have the belief system to be able to say Hitler was objectively wrong for all time and all place.

What about the Bonobo example I gave?

 

[Cypress]

Hitler was wrong. But only relative to humans.

Back up, start over, and try again.

It's just your opinion that Hitler was wrong, unless you can appeal to a higher and eternal moral standard, natural law, Kantian moral imperatives, etc

From the perspective of survival and Darwinian evolution, it could have made perfect sense for the Spartans to abandon weak or disabled babies to the wild. It could have made perfect sense for Hitler to cull the gene pool by liquidating the disabled and mentally retarded.

I'm trying to find people who are willing to believe that Hitler was objectively wrong independent of human opinion or the popular vote. I am hoping I don't have to just count on religious people to have that kind of moral standard.

 

[Obtenebrator]

unless you can appeal to a higher and eternal moral standard, natural law, Kantian moral imperatives, etc

Who is the "author" of these "eternal standards"? Where do they come from?

You see the difference between MY hypothesis and yours is that mine is utilizing KNOWN THINGS. Yours seems to be without any form, meaning, details or information.

I'm trying to find people who are willing to believe that Hitler was objectively wrong independent of human opinion or the popular vote.

And, again, for the millionth time: I already gave you that utilizing my hypothesis.

And how does YOUR hypothesis explain why Hitler was wrong? Presumably your rationale for why Hitler was wrong is that he was just wrong.

That isn't a great explanation.

How do you come to know that genocide is wrong?

I am hoping I don't have to just count on religious people to have that kind of moral standard,l.

It feels to me like your hypothesis is literally EXACTLY what religious people think and feel. The only difference seems to be that while you both agree someone beyond space and time made up the rules you are unwilling to commit to there actually BEING someone beyond space and time.

In a sense YOUR position is inherently flawed given your own statements on your other positions.

I value an explanation that is at least internally consistent and utilizes known things.

 

[Cypress]

Who is the "author" of these "eternal standards"? Where do they come from?

You see the difference between MY hypothesis and yours is that mine is utilizing KNOWN THINGS. Yours seems to be without any form, meaning, details or information.





And, again, for the millionth time: I already gave you that utilizing my hypothesis.

And how does YOUR hypothesis explain why Hitler was wrong? Presumably your rationale for why Hitler was wrong is that he was just wrong.

That isn't a great explanation.

How do you come to know that genocide is wrong?



It feels to me like your hypothesis is literally EXACTLY what religious people think and feel. The only difference seems to be that while you both agree someone beyond space and time made up the rules you are unwilling to commit to there actually BEING someone beyond space and time.

In a sense YOUR position is inherently flawed given your own statements on your other positions.

I value an explanation that is at least internally consistent and utilizes known things.

I've said about nine billion times I don't understand how human conscience works, and the human conciousness is still largely a mystery even science can't explain.

So even though you are a moral relativist, you are reticent to enthusiastically embrace it and own it.

I don't blame you. There's something about moral relativism that just gives of a cynical and unpleasant vibe.

 

[Cypress]

I'm personally of the opinion that morality is a manifestation of rules that really only apply to social creatures (like humans) and which help stabilize the social network.

As such I'm not a moral relativist

You began the thread hollering that humans are just another type of animal we don't carve out exceptions for.

And now you've come full circle into saying humans occupy a special place in creation because our reason and rationality can have imprinted on it a morality and value system that goes well beyond what is required for survival by the principles of Darwinian evolution. Chimpanzees don't come close to having our sophisticated and abstract system of values.

You also made a strategic decision to turn your back on moral relativism, and run away from it at full sprint.


Welcome to my world. I'm glad to see my statements were so persuasive.

My work here seems to be done.

 

[Hume]

Back up, start over, and try again.

It's just your opinion that Hitler was wrong, unless you can appeal to a higher and eternal moral standard, natural law, Kantian moral imperatives, etc

Kant was just a Christian. You are just a Christian. Ethics does not come from your god.

 

[Hume]

I've said about nine billion times I don't understand how human conscience works, and the human conciousness is still largely a mystery even science can't explain.

So even though you are a moral relativist, you are reticent to enthusiastically embrace it and own it.

I don't blame you. There's something about moral relativism that just gives of a cynical and unpleasant vibe.

You think anyone who disagrees with you is a moral relativist. There are many different moral systems.

 

[Hume]

I don't blame you. There's something about moral relativism that just gives of a cynical and unpleasant vibe.

How are people in Japan able to have a system of morality without the Christian god?

 

[Cypress]

How are people in Japan able to have a system of morality without the Christian god?

You won't find anywhere in this thread where I said an objective moral truth requires a god of Abraham.

Plato, Socrates, Confucius, Zhu Xi, Jesus, Kant seemed to think there was some kind of objective universal moral truth imprinted on us we could discover with our unique properties of reason, contemplation , and rationality.

That's a lot more appealing to me than any system of belief that relegates morality to opinion and popular consensus.

 

[Hume]

You won't find anywhere in this thread where I said an objective moral truth requires a god of Abraham.

Plato, Socrates, Confucius, Zhu Xi, Jesus, Kant seemed to think there was some kind of objective universal moral truth imprinted on us we could discover with our unique properties of reason, contemplation , and rationality.

That's a lot more appealing to me than any system of belief that relegates morality to opinion and popular consensus.

We run our entire nation on popular consensus. Ethics is no different.