Are you afraid of death?

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

I don't necessarily think that there's more bad than good in the world; I simply don't see why I would want to spend 100 or more years in a world where evil exists when I can spend eternity in a world where it doesn't.

What makes you think that heaven has no evil?
Have you forgotten that that heaven is where Satan is said to have come from?

Regards
DL

What is even your point here?

That evil is in heaven as well as everywhere else.

Regards
DL

I know, but why?

[Greatest I am]

Can't even recant gracefully. How sad for you.

Regards
DL

I wasn't recanting.

Regards
Scott

Exactly. You should have.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

No, and honestly, I don't get the obsession people have with living as long as possible.  Why would I want to spend 100 years in a world filled with pain and suffering when I can spend an eternity in a perfect world with my God?

What makes you think there is more pain and suffering than good in the world?

I track the stats for evil. Murder and death by violence and war, poverty, longevity, crime and slavery.

All those are at the best levels that mankind has ever seen.

So why do you see more evil than good?

Could it be the way you are looking and not reality?

Regards
DL

I don't necessarily think that there's more bad than good in the world; I simply don't see why I would want to spend 100 or more years in a world where evil exists when I can spend eternity in a world where it doesn't.

What makes you think that heaven has no evil?
Have you forgotten that that heaven is where Satan is said to have come from?

Regards
DL

What is even your point here?

That evil is in heaven as well as everywhere else.

Regards
DL

I know, but why?

Because the imaginary heaven that most seek does not exist.

As above so below.

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

It would be like you or I deciding to make a graph with only one designator at one end and an infinite line at the other.

That may be why the early church called Adams sin a happy fault and necessary sin.

Our graph of good must have the necessary term of evil as the other end to make it a true graph.

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

[afleitch]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

No. It would be more appropriate to say that saying 'god is good' or 'good flows from god' actually says nothing about the nature of god (or good)

Digging this out from before (because every day is a learning day)

Theistic morality is subjectivist. If things are ‘good’ because god says that they are good then morals are arbitrary. Indeed, they are more arbitrary from a subjectivist perspective than our definition of morality because god (if it is in any way god like) is entirely unbounded by anything that would otherwise constrain us, or alter our path when making decisions.

So it robs ‘good’ from any definition. ‘Good’ is simply what something powerful mandates. If god mandates it, then ‘good’ means nothing. Saying ‘god is good’ is simply saying ‘god is god’. It says nothing meaningful about its actions because god would be ‘good’ no matter what it does. So that definition robs not only ‘good of its goodness’, but ‘god of its glory’. Why should there be praise for god if it would be equally praised even if it did the complete opposite? If what is arbitrary replaces what is just or reasonable, then all justice is, if anything, is what is pleasing to god.

So if things have to be ‘good’, then they must be good for another reason, if goodness needs to have value, then it can no more come from god that it can from us.

Saying that morality is actually grounded in god’s nature and expressed in its commands doesn’t avoid this problem. Whatever it was god’s nature to prefer would still be right by definition and still diminish the significance of moral terms. So saying god is good would just be saying that god also accords to its own nature which isn’t really an accomplishment. If it’s nature were different it would still be good. The wider issue is that theistic ethics are essentially ethically subjective; moral statements being made true by the attitude of certain people.

Which I think is what you might have wanted to say.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

afleitch, do you have any sympathy for Moore's ethics? I ask because you're (reasonably) preoccupied with the subjectivity involved in any divine Person defining morals, yet I don't think the steps towards an articulation of a sort of hedonism (in the technical sense of that word) that you've taken in the past (unless I'm confusing you with another poster, or simply misremembering your views? Sorry if I am) really solves this problem.

[afleitch]

afleitch, do you have any sympathy for Moore's ethics? I ask because you're (reasonably) preoccupied with the subjectivity involved in any divine Person defining morals, yet I don't think the steps towards an articulation of a sort of hedonism (in the technical sense of that word) that you've taken in the past (unless I'm confusing you with another poster, or simply misremembering your views? Sorry if I am) really solves this problem.

I believe in the Republic of Heaven.

I do sympathise with G.E Moore, I came across him a little later,which has allowed me to articulate my thoughts with a little less meandering. I think that theistic morality is subjectivist in the sense that I can consider all forms of morality to be subjectivist as the only entities doing the moralising are us, and anything we perceive external to that always comes across as a facsimile of what we would expect an arbiter with human concerns and indulgences to be concerned with (rather than say the 'morality' of a spider that devours it's mate)

And that is fine. Because ultimately the 'problem' with ethics being subjectivist exists only in the minds of those who consider it problematic in the first instance. Likewise, I have similar issues with the idea that ontology must be structured around the dichotomy of 'god v no god' and all concepts in the West (philosophy, the self, justice) subconsciously flow from this dichotomy, despite some eastern cultures developing a functioning ontology devoid of that prerequisite.

I don't consider myself hedonistic, and a quick on search hasn't brought that up, though I think a few other posters have expressed support for classicist hedonism. I have mentioned before I think, that if anything I think that pain is the marker by which we measure pleasure, and sadness how we measure joy and vice versa. Seeking perpetual 'joy', or 'peace' or 'meaning' (never 'find yourself', because you've basically given up on looking) even the spiritual promise of this is both hedonistic in intent and a false promise (because joy will cease being joyful with the removal of fear and pain). But I'm getting all 'buy my book' here so I'll stop.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

That makes sense. Sorry to break out the H-word when it wasn't appropriate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really don't understand why subjectivism is so trendy these days in discussions of morality when it never comes up in other areas of philosophy. I'm not only referring to Afleitch here, I had a similar discussion with a fellow student a few days ago (which went terribly because I always sound like a moron when I have to talk instead of writing). Of course every notion we have of moral principles is determined by our subjective perceptions, but the same could be said of reality itself. The only way that I can know that there is a table in front of me is through by seeing or touching it. Do we conclude that there is no such thing as an objective reality, only 7 billion subjective realities (or more if you count animals)? I mean, some philosophers do, and it's a logically unassailable position, but I'm not sure Afleitch and the others want to go that route.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really don't understand why subjectivism is so trendy these days in discussions of morality when it never comes up in other areas of philosophy. I'm not only referring to Afleitch here, I had a similar discussion with a fellow student a few days ago (which went terribly because I always sound like a moron when I have to talk instead of writing). Of course every notion we have of moral principles is determined by our subjective perceptions, but the same could be said of reality itself. The only way that I can know that there is a table in front of me is through by seeing or touching it. Do we conclude that there is no such thing as an objective reality, only 7 billion subjective realities (or more if you count animals)? I mean, some philosophers do, and it's a logically unassailable position, but I'm not sure Afleitch and the others want to go that route.

Is anyone going to take this up? I know there's at least a dozen of open moral relativists out there. Afleitch is the most articulate of them, but I'll settle for a Joe if that's all I can get.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I really don't understand why subjectivism is so trendy these days in discussions of morality when it never comes up in other areas of philosophy. I'm not only referring to Afleitch here, I had a similar discussion with a fellow student a few days ago (which went terribly because I always sound like a moron when I have to talk instead of writing). Of course every notion we have of moral principles is determined by our subjective perceptions, but the same could be said of reality itself. The only way that I can know that there is a table in front of me is through by seeing or touching it. Do we conclude that there is no such thing as an objective reality, only 7 billion subjective realities (or more if you count animals)? I mean, some philosophers do, and it's a logically unassailable position, but I'm not sure Afleitch and the others want to go that route.

Is anyone going to take this up? I know there's at least a dozen of open moral relativists out there. Afleitch is the most articulate of them, but I'll settle for a Joe if that's all I can get.

I didn't interpret what afleitch was saying to be a positive articulation of moral relativism, but I could be wrong, as I've been wrong about his position on ethics once already on this very page.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really don't understand why subjectivism is so trendy these days in discussions of morality when it never comes up in other areas of philosophy. I'm not only referring to Afleitch here, I had a similar discussion with a fellow student a few days ago (which went terribly because I always sound like a moron when I have to talk instead of writing). Of course every notion we have of moral principles is determined by our subjective perceptions, but the same could be said of reality itself. The only way that I can know that there is a table in front of me is through by seeing or touching it. Do we conclude that there is no such thing as an objective reality, only 7 billion subjective realities (or more if you count animals)? I mean, some philosophers do, and it's a logically unassailable position, but I'm not sure Afleitch and the others want to go that route.

Is anyone going to take this up? I know there's at least a dozen of open moral relativists out there. Afleitch is the most articulate of them, but I'll settle for a Joe if that's all I can get.

I didn't interpret what afleitch was saying to be a positive articulation of moral relativism, but I could be wrong, as I've been wrong about his position on ethics once already on this very page.

I remember him arguing for it more explicitly in this thread. Our conversation there eventually drifted on this issue, and tbh I've always wanted to continue it.

[Greatest I am]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

As to Augustine to G.E. Moore, in creating their graph of levels or degrees of good, what did they show as the least good and could we not call that evil?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

No. It would be more appropriate to say that saying 'god is good' or 'good flows from god' actually says nothing about the nature of god (or good)

Digging this out from before (because every day is a learning day)

Theistic morality is subjectivist. If things are ‘good’ because god says that they are good then morals are arbitrary. Indeed, they are more arbitrary from a subjectivist perspective than our definition of morality because god (if it is in any way god like) is entirely unbounded by anything that would otherwise constrain us, or alter our path when making decisions.

So it robs ‘good’ from any definition. ‘Good’ is simply what something powerful mandates. If god mandates it, then ‘good’ means nothing. Saying ‘god is good’ is simply saying ‘god is god’. It says nothing meaningful about its actions because god would be ‘good’ no matter what it does. So that definition robs not only ‘good of its goodness’, but ‘god of its glory’. Why should there be praise for god if it would be equally praised even if it did the complete opposite? If what is arbitrary replaces what is just or reasonable, then all justice is, if anything, is what is pleasing to god.

So if things have to be ‘good’, then they must be good for another reason, if goodness needs to have value, then it can no more come from god that it can from us.

Saying that morality is actually grounded in god’s nature and expressed in its commands doesn’t avoid this problem. Whatever it was god’s nature to prefer would still be right by definition and still diminish the significance of moral terms. So saying god is good would just be saying that god also accords to its own nature which isn’t really an accomplishment. If it’s nature were different it would still be good. The wider issue is that theistic ethics are essentially ethically subjective; moral statements being made true by the attitude of certain people.

Which I think is what you might have wanted to say.

Perhaps.

I would never say that God is good as God is generally thought of as an entity while good is thought to be a condition or attribute.

I do like what you put though.

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

Oh my God, you're not being ironic, are you??!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They...they didn't create 'graphs'.

[Greatest I am]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

Oh my God, you're not being ironic, are you??!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They...they didn't create 'graphs'.

They would have had to have a mental construct to go with their thinking and that would have been a graph.

You should not reference those whose thinking you do not understand.

Regards
DL

[Antonio the Sixth]

You should not reference those whose thinking you do not understand.

I couldn't agree more!

Regards
AV

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

Oh my God, you're not being ironic, are you??!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They...they didn't create 'graphs'.

They would have had to have a mental construct to go with their thinking and that would have been a graph.

The word you're thinking of is 'schema' or possibly 'framework'. Augustine's schema/framework specifies evil as the privation of good, yes. You're defining good as the privation of evil, which is absurd.

You should not use those words whose meaning you do not understand.

Regards
NT

[DavidB.]

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

Delete your account.

Regards
DB

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Outrageous to see Augustine - one of the greatest and most influential minds in history - mentioned in the same breath as noted idiot G.E. Moore who is known these days, to the extent that he is known at all, for being wrong about pretty much everything...

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Outrageous to see Augustine - one of the greatest and most influential minds in history - mentioned in the same breath as noted idiot G.E. Moore who is known these days, to the extent that he is known at all, for being wrong about pretty much everything...

It's been a long time since I sat down and read Moore or his critics, and the work I have read is mostly from within Moore's lifetime. What's more wrong with him than with other philosophers of the period?

[Greatest I am]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

Oh my God, you're not being ironic, are you??!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They...they didn't create 'graphs'.

They would have had to have a mental construct to go with their thinking and that would have been a graph.

The word you're thinking of is 'schema' or possibly 'framework'. Augustine's schema/framework specifies evil as the privation of good, yes. You're defining good as the privation of evil, which is absurd.

You should not use those words whose meaning you do not understand.

Regards
NT

Nowhere have I stated that good as the privation of evil.

All I have stated is that on a graph of good, there would have to be something at the other end of the graph and that that would be called evil.

I guess you do not think well enough to be able to visualize that but if you google any graph, you will note that they always have two descriptions that they are comparing.

IE.      Good-----------------------------------------------------Evil

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The best thinking that we have to date seems to say that if we do not have evil to compare to good then good cannot be defined.

Whose 'best thinking' is this? Give me names. Because heavy hitters from Augustine to G.E. Moore say the opposite or something close to the opposite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maek u think

The last thing the church wants is to have their sheeple think.

Oh my God, you're not being ironic, are you??!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They...they didn't create 'graphs'.

They would have had to have a mental construct to go with their thinking and that would have been a graph.

The word you're thinking of is 'schema' or possibly 'framework'. Augustine's schema/framework specifies evil as the privation of good, yes. You're defining good as the privation of evil, which is absurd.

You should not use those words whose meaning you do not understand.

Regards
NT

Nowhere have I stated that good as the privation of evil.

All I have stated is that on a graph of good, there would have to be something at the other end of the graph and that that would be called evil.

I guess you do not think well enough to be able to visualize that but if you google any graph, you will note that they always have two descriptions that they are comparing.

IE.      Good-----------------------------------------------------Evil

Regards
DL

Don't patronize me.

Regards
NT

[Greatest I am]

Don't write like an idiot and I won't.

Regards
DL

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Don't write like an idiot and I won't.

Regards
DL

You know, maybe you know more about Gnosticism than I give you credit for. You certainly have the self-congratulatory, snobbish, unwarranted self-importance and belief that you know better than everyone else and if they disagree with you or don't understand what you're trying to say then they must be drooling morons down pat.

Also, you absolutely implied that you think good is a privation of evil and you know it, edgelord.

Regards
NT