tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5860398261842863942..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: "If I had a hammer ..."Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-59250732026108661512010-05-24T02:41:49.203+10:002010-05-24T02:41:49.203+10:00A Postscript
The larger point I had in mind in ana...<i>A Postscript<br />The larger point I had in mind in analysis of the hammer metaphor got inundated by the distractions about theology etc -- distractions partly caused by me. <br /><br />The main point was the distinction between "instrumental good" and the "absolute good" found in Platonism and later related Idealism. And the big conclusion I made, which nobody actually shot down, was this: <br /><br />If instrumental ("useful") good, which CAN be objective (as in evaluating hammers) is the only form of measurement in ethics, it leaves ethics open to ideas like Final Solutions. And, as I said: <br /><br /></i>"[a] war might not be 'bad' in some instrumental sense ... but WISE it would not be. This leads me to intuit that some defensible non-instrumental definition of 'good' is necessary to explain why not."<br /><br /><i>And since non-instrumental good is not an object of science, I am saying, science is not sufficient in creating moral judgments. <br /><br />Literally I am arguing THIS point, which I was hoping to justify on reasoned rgumentation: </i>there can be no moral science.<br /><i><br />I wish that my clumsiness in exposition had not distracted this thread from discussing that. Again, my apologies to all for the distraction.</i>GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-78585245902389901782010-05-20T14:03:55.450+10:002010-05-20T14:03:55.450+10:00Noted.
Western philosophers have been trying sinc...Noted.<br /><br />Western philosophers have been trying since the Enlightenment to create a secular philosophy of ethics. If it were easy, it would be done by now. <br /><br />Back to the hammer thing. LOL.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-35439308943957943692010-05-20T02:34:08.097+10:002010-05-20T02:34:08.097+10:00GTChristie, I'm sorry, I have spoken too harsh...GTChristie, I'm sorry, I have spoken too harshly again.<br /><br />I did not mean to imply that you share the beliefs of the "learned Church fathers". I was trying to get you to acknowledge that these men were not admirable. It could be argued that what they did was more damaging to Western civilization than the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. They used Plato, Aristotle, introspection and bald-faced lies to justify their Christian affiliations. That was their profession (in both senses of the word). As far as we know they did nothing of value. They were slime.<br /><br />On the other hand, my demands that you despise their project with the same passion I apply to it have been overstated and rude.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-15621906482877148412010-05-20T00:17:35.208+10:002010-05-20T00:17:35.208+10:00When you refer to "the learned Church fathers...<i>When you refer to "the learned Church fathers," I want to grab your shoulders and shake the nonsense out of you.</i><br /><br />I would like to point out that having knowledge about a subject is not the same as believing the teachings of that subject. I am making a point about history there. <br /><br />I am not religious (as I have pointed out in other posts); in fact I am irreligious.<br /><br />The learned Church fathers -- ie the educated men of the early centuries of Christianity -- were influenced by Plato. In particular they were influenced by the theory of Forms (or Ideals) which holds there is a realm beyond physical reality.<br /><br />That is a historical statement. Now explain to me how that is nonsense. <br /><br />Also explain to me what sentence construction or "context" in my analysis leads you to conclude that I believe there is a realm beyond the physical? Do I not say in one of the previous comments, clearly, "Is there such a thing" and clearly say "No"? <br /><br />I am willing to eat words that I have said, if they are wrong. I am not willing to have words put in my mouth. <br /><br />Reconsider.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22552568609704932902010-05-19T22:05:30.254+10:002010-05-19T22:05:30.254+10:00You philosophical types love to argue about word. ...You philosophical types love to argue about word. :) <br /><br />The point is that everyone knows what "good" means. What most people don't think about is that "good" is a modifier of some OTHER subject. The reason for that is that supernaturalists have latched onto certain words "good" being one. And will say things like "god is good", or "only god is good", and try to make "good" into a concept in itself, rather than allowing "good" to be a modifier for something else.<br /><br />Another term they do this for is "believer". And they have been successful in this too. For example, sometimes you will hear the question "Are you a believer?". I would submit that all humans over 5 years old have beliefs. Yet many people will say "no, I am not a believer." This is in fact incorrect, and you can explore that with them, by asking... "You mean, you don't believe in gravity?" To which they will probably say "oh, of course". Well... then they are a believer.<br /><br />The problem is that the supernaturalists have cooped the term "believer" to imply that only one particular "belief" is relevant to that question. The cure for this is to not allow the supernaturalist to "own" that term, and if asked "are you a believer?", the only rational response is "believer in what?"<br /><br />Back to the "good" issue. I believe that almost every human understands the concept of "good", just as they understand the concept of "greater than" or "less then". Usually when topics of "good" come up, the issue to be explored and clarified is the object or concept that "good" is being called on to modify, NOT the concept of goodness.<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><a href="http://RichGriese.NET" rel="nofollow">RichGriese.NET</a>Rich Griesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16947798364523082547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-11357467240515526482010-05-19T21:34:11.909+10:002010-05-19T21:34:11.909+10:00Not necessarily successful, but capable of being s...Not necessarily successful, but capable of being successful (the hammer may never have been used so far). I.e. effective for the purpose or goal or desire.<br /><br />I'm not keen on "relative" as a word for this either. "Relational" if you prefer. But it is always good in relation to something. There is no <i>just good</i>. That's an illusion.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-24737808311714728532010-05-19T18:16:24.061+10:002010-05-19T18:16:24.061+10:00I would offer simpler meaning for "good"...I would offer simpler meaning for "good". I would say good means "successful". So a good murder, is a murderer that has successfully murdered someone. So I would disagree with your statement that goodness is relative. Good is a modifying term. meaning, it cannot stand alone. So you can be a good murder, or a good artist, or a good programmer, but you cannot simply be good. When people say "he is good", there is really a tacit subject, like husband or man implicit. Argument CAN come when people disagree on the subject, not good. Good means successful, that is clear. But to one a murder is one that murder one person, and to another it is a person that murders ten. So in your example of the hammer, the argument is not if IT is good or not. but what IT is. meaning, they can argue about what a "hammer" is. Only when we agree on the subject, is it possible to consider if it is a "good" example of that subject.<br /><br />In your "good tool" example, the person is most likely views a "tool" as something that is "well made to last a long time". Sounds like that person is a romantic, that probably likes the idea of building things like his house with only hand tools, etc...<br /><br />So you see it is the "subject" that is at issue. Once we agree on the attributes of the subject then all can determine if it is a "good" example of the subject. People actually know very well what "good" is. (setting aside the supernaturalists desire to try to pervert the idea of good as a modifier or attribute for some thing, and try to make the word stand alone, but this is simply sophistry) What they not not agree on is what is an "ideal" example of the subject in question.<br /><br />So... if an "good football player" one that makes the most yardage? Or one that will play with a broken nose without complaint?<br /><br />The key way to proceed with your "good tool" person, since he is not being helpful in explaining himself. Is to say "give me 3 attributes of a 'good tool'". Then you can begin to actually see what he is talking about. <br /><br />Every one knows what "good" is, it is the definition or idealization of the object good is modifying that they may differ on.<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><a href="http://RichGriese.NET" rel="nofollow">RichGriese.NET</a>Rich Griesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16947798364523082547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90410458585523727162010-05-19T17:04:15.227+10:002010-05-19T17:04:15.227+10:00Well, it looks to me as if we can all agree that s...Well, it looks to me as if we can all agree that something rightly or wrongly known as "Christian philosophy" was influenced by Plato via St Paul and St Augustine. We can also agree, I hope, that Sam Harris does not really take the extreme positions often attributed to him, but that this is not clear if some of his statements are read out of context. (Perhaps someone should edit his Wikipedia article, however.)<br /><br />At least I hope that much is now agreed by everybody involved in the discussion. If not, I reckon I'll give up here and concentrate on the next long thread that's developing.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-89774597234787440492010-05-19T08:49:43.224+10:002010-05-19T08:49:43.224+10:00I am also interested in the study of very early ch...I am also interested in the study of very early christianity. I am currently reading, Walter Bauer's _Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity_. I have studied the topic for almost 20 years now. I have read a number of other of the great works on this topic like Strauss, Harnack, Schweitzer, two additional Bauers (FC & Bruno), and many many others, but this is my current read.<br /><br />I am always interested in meeting others that are interested in the study of earliest christianity to have ongoing conversations and share reading lists, etc... you can contact me by email at RichGriese@gmail.com<br /><br />Do you have specific aspect of the study that interest you, that you might be interested in discussing, and perhaps having on going discussions on the topic in general? Feel free to email me to talk about it.<br /><br />My main interest is the very earliest period. Perhaps from the modified Messiah idea that may have begun around the time of the Maccabean revolt through the beginnings of christianity itself, till the Council of Nicea in 325CE, and perhaps a few years after that as some of the results of that council took effect.<br /><br />You can find the beginnings of my religion site at;<br /><br /><a href="http://richgriese.dyndns.org:8080/tag:religion?do=showtag&tag=religion" rel="nofollow">http://richgriese.dyndns.org:8080/tag:religion?do=showtag&tag=religion</a><br /><br />Cheers!<br /><a href="http://RichGriese.NET" rel="nofollow">RichGriese.NET</a>Rich Griesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16947798364523082547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62410153410632854082010-05-19T04:40:39.376+10:002010-05-19T04:40:39.376+10:00As you probably know, it is not true that "th...As you probably know, it is not true that "the things of this world pale by comparison with the infinite rewards of heaven." It is not even a philosophical position. It is just a lie.<br /><br />When you refer to "the learned Church fathers," I want to grab your shoulders and shake the nonsense out of you.<br /><br />Of course that style of intervention is almost certain to create more problems than it solves. Which is why I have never tried it -- except in my imagination.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9978046246279011362010-05-19T03:02:59.064+10:002010-05-19T03:02:59.064+10:00What's Platonic in Christianity is the way the...What's Platonic in Christianity is the way the Ideals or Forms echo the belief in a realm outside or above human comprehension. In particular this belief, coming as it did from the Greeks, greatly affected the learned Church fathers who taught that the things of this world pale by comparison with the infinite rewards of heaven -- it's a borrowed Greek metaphysics to bolster (and build bridges to) the new faith (Christianity). This metaphysics supports many of the statements of the Nicene Creed, for instance -- none of which is in the bible but which was necessary to create, to make the new faith coherent (and of course to tell a believer from a heretic). <br /><br />You will find a lot of religion (and morality generally) has as much to do with identify ("who we are") as it does with doctrine. "We are the people who believe X, and I am one of us" creates in the individual a sense of belonging and in the community a rod to measure the individual's acceptability. In all the talk about hammers etc, we have not dealt much with real people and actual behavior. Ie, in our culture we are more comfortable with rules, ultimates, goals, formulas and derivability than we are with belonging, acceptance, ostracism, group behavior, socialization etc. Morality is in great part a function of how people cooperate, in which a "like-minded" group is more effective (even evolutionarily) than a disorganized group. Actually the science ABOUT morality is pointing in this direction. <br /><br />I believe there is no possible science of deriving judgments from universal rules. So the role of science in ethics is to inform human nature, not to tell us what to do.<br /><br />But ... that's a discussion for another day.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-51881507697873636702010-05-19T02:44:15.907+10:002010-05-19T02:44:15.907+10:00Thank you for this analysis of context in Harris&#...Thank you for this analysis of context in Harris' views. I know the "careless" citation belongs to me (I did not have the book in hand); I just went to wiki to look up Harris because I had not heard of him before coming to this blog. And that is what I found -- and found it troubling. I brought it up and in my own defense I can say only "that's why I brought it up" and certainly not to mischaracterize anyone. That's why we have these discussions. So I withdraw any accusatory connotations my words may have carried and subject them to the condition that, if your analysis is correct, I apologize to all for having perpetuated a misconception. However, I have a feeling many people can (mis)read Harris and this might have as much to do with his own expressiveness as with any intent to misread him. I'm willing to stand corrected -- if yashwata's analysis is right!<br /><br />===<br />Christian philosophy is distinct from its theology. Its biggest influence is on "canon law," which is the human interpretation of divine law -- think of it as the judicial branch of Christianity, where reasoning must occur, in addition to faith. The line is hazy. An example would be the philosophical roots of the Catholic rule of celibacy in the priesthood. That's not in the bible. It's a philosophical position taken with the bible and theology in mind -- but it's not theology. It's got a lot to do with "how do we interpret scripture" (literally? figuratively?) or read divine intent where no specific scripture can be cited. And, of course, this trickles down to the philosopher who is also Christian Believing in "sanctifying grace" for instance, which was not a teaching of Jesus, can color or inform even the most nominally secular philsopher's attitudes to metaphysics etc. All the debatable points within Christianity cannot be settled by scripture, therefore philosophy is done to interpret scripture. So it is that Luther posts a manifesto on a church door ... a conflict of philosophies concerning the divine will. Etc.<br /><br /><br />The conduits for Plato into early Christianity were Augustine and PaulGTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-16062954959374329702010-05-18T06:43:30.629+10:002010-05-18T06:43:30.629+10:00Thank you, friend of Ocelos! I lost my copy of The...Thank you, friend of Ocelos! I lost my copy of <i>The End of Faith</i>; you have saved me a trip to the library.<br /><br />Taken out of context, Harris's statements on war and torture certainly sound extreme. But the context, of course, is everything.<br /><br />Reading these passages from <i>The End of Faith</i> carefully, we find that Harris is not so much recommending extreme measures as he is carefully declining to rule them out under all circumstances. Is torture <i>never, ever</i> the right thing to do? Harris considers, and replies: I'm not prepared to say that. He is not the kind of absolutist who would say something like, "If you're the torturer, you've forfeited the moral high ground, every single time." Personally, <i>I would</i> say that, and I am dismayed that Harris does not.<br /><br />But it's not as if he is saying that torture is okay! In fact, he's saying that it's so not okay that we should make it <i>completely illegal,</i> figuring that if anyone is ever in a position to consider it a necessary evil, they'll have to do it even though it's illegal! Now that sounds pretty strange, but I think it represents the <i>mainstream</i> view of Western society: that torture is totally hideous, and we should never do it, <i>except possibly</i> under certain scenarios that seem unlikely but cannot be totally ruled out. This is not a radical position. It is perfectly reasonable.<br /><br />Harris's statements on war have the same character. "IF," he says (my reading!), "someone is insane, AND they have the Bomb, AND maybe a few more conditions, THEN are there certain things that, although we <i>could</i> do them to save ourselves and our civilization from total annihilation, <i>we must rule them out</i> on moral grounds? Sorry, I can't think of any." Again, the point is not to threaten anyone but to call our attention to an already existing threat.<br /><br />Let me remind you of the broad context. The core thesis of <i>The End of Faith</i> is that religious ideas are dangerous -- perhaps more dangerous than we can even imagine. Some of Harris's language is extreme, for a very good reason. Religion has been telling us for 10,000 years that it is <i>the ultimate good.</i> We are fortunate if once in a blue moon someone is willing to step up and say <i>No, that's a lie,</i> and take the full measure of abuse for doing so.<br /><br />Contrary to the accusations raised against him (and carelessly repeated on this page), Sam Harris has never proposed or advocated war or torture against anyone, for any reason. The closest he has come to such a position has been to say that <i>if</i> we should encounter certain <i>most extreme threats,</i> he is not certain that there is any response that should be ruled out, in advance, on moral grounds. Surely such an attitude is beyond reproach.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-23971705663806722442010-05-18T04:03:23.799+10:002010-05-18T04:03:23.799+10:00After reading this discussion, I think I should po...After reading this discussion, I think I should point out that the passages in question from <i>The End of Faith</i> are posted <a href="http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/" rel="nofollow">here</a> on Sam Harris's website along with his own clarifications.Friend of Icelosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-26708019435849411142010-05-17T19:17:42.481+10:002010-05-17T19:17:42.481+10:00Is there really a discipline rightly called Christ...Is there really a discipline rightly called Christian <i>philosophy</i> and distinct from Christian <i>theology</i>?<br /><br />I am certainly not an expert on authors like Aquinas and Augustine, having been exposed to them mostly through Bertrand Russell's <i>History of Western Philosophy</i> and counting that enough horror for one lifetime. (The rest of the book is much more fun.) If that's Christian philosophy, then sure, it's heavily indebted to Plato. But I reckon that where it's Christian it's not philosophy, and vice versa.<br /><br />If I had a Christian doctor, and he cured my gout with vitamin pills, I would not call that a Christian cure. I would call it a scientific cure -- or just a cure. A Christian cure would probably involve hideous suffering and it would probably not work.<br /><br />It seems possible, in principle, for a nominally Christian writer to put his "faith" aside and write some real philosophy. That sort of a person might lean on Plato or Aristotle like any other scholar; and then you could describe his work as based on Platonism -- but not his <i>Christian</i> work, because this particular work is, <i>ex hypothesi,</i> not particularly Christian.<br /><br />Maybe that's enough clarification for such a minor point. I mean, this is not a huge disagreement. Not like that Sam Harris thing. :~)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28713877683054920212010-05-17T18:17:05.114+10:002010-05-17T18:17:05.114+10:00A bit of clarification: I have not said that Chris...A bit of clarification: I have not said that Christianity itself is based on Platonism, as in reasoning beginning from Plato to derive the Christian religion. <br /><br />Distinguish Christian philosophy from Christian theology. The theology is based on scripture. It isn't proper argumentation to take the two as interchangeable, and object to a point about Christian metaphysics by making it sound like a point about its theology. I haven't used the term theology (the intent of which is not my issue), I've used the term philosophy -- and for a reason. I know this will cause trouble but here's the wisecrack: the teachings of Jesus define the theology (as in the so called will of God) but the philosophy produced by Christian thinkers (what is the world, how do we understand it) is Plato first (via Augustine and Paul, as Russell points out) and later Aristotle via Aquinas (who argued that Aristotelian science was not incompatible with Catholicism). That is to say, there is Greek metaphysics alongside Judaic belief in God and the two are distinguishable. My original point was, this Platonic idealism affects philosophers, not that it defines scripture. I think that's a switcheroo to object to the point about philosophy by making a point about theology. <br /><br />Off the cuff, basically I agree with you as far as the two issues are kept apart, and disagree if you don't distinguish between them.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80911489436047783022010-05-17T17:19:16.512+10:002010-05-17T17:19:16.512+10:00GTChristie said, "it is not misleading to say...GTChristie said, <i>"it is not misleading to say that the roots of Christian philosophy are deeply influenced by Platonism"</i><br /><br />The <i>roots</i>?<br /><br /><i>Deeply</i> influenced?<br /><br />Yes, it is misleading.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4537675888078971722010-05-17T17:11:25.916+10:002010-05-17T17:11:25.916+10:00GTChristie said, "Now Sam Harris looks awfull...GTChristie said, <i>"Now Sam Harris looks awfully unreasonable from the cultural perspective in ethics, for apparently wanting to eliminate one. I don't believe in killing anyone in the name of religion or anything else."</i><br /><br />This is making me angry. Sam Harris has never advocated killing (or torturing) anyone, for any reason, ever. Where on Earth did you get that idea? Not even that Wikipedia article supports it!<br /><br />When Harris talks about war, he is referring to the fact that self-identified Islamists have killed thousands of "infidels". He has <i>never</i> recommended that we in the West start killing Muslims.<br /><br />Harris has rightly pointed out that the notion of a "war on terror" is absurd. And it is conceivable that he has said something like: our enemy is not terror but Islam. But even if he said that, he was referring to the fact that they are attacking us. He has <i>never</i> said that we should attack them.<br /><br />Unless there is some evidence you can share with us, Mr Christie, stop accusing Mr Harris of murderous intent.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4432778155402745282010-05-17T15:57:36.578+10:002010-05-17T15:57:36.578+10:00Yashwata:
We're not really supposed to cite wi...Yashwata:<br />We're not really supposed to cite wikis in academia, but this is where I discovered the info about Sam Harris' views on Islam.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29#Islam<br /><br />I do not want to enter a discussion whether science IS a philosophy, and I probably should not have expressed the "conflict between science and christianity" as if science is an institution in the same sense as "the church" is an institution. But it is not misleading to say that the roots of Christian philosophy are deeply influenced by Platonism, and that Platonism is not scientific. That is what I meant to point out. If I did that too clumsily, consider this my correction. <br /><br />I am usually quite careful about usage and it really makes my feet itch when my words can be turned like that. LOL. So ... better technique from now on.<br /><br />I need to apologize to Zachary for alluding to HIS remarks on axiomatic systems and attributing them to "Roy" ... <br /><br />And finally, the points made by Blue Ridge above are outstanding, in particular the passage about ethics being defined within societies (I usually tag this as cultures). We can escape the word chase around defining "good" by understanding that the word is invented, used and defined by cultural processes, including the process of "what to attach the evaluative word of approval to," which comes right back around to the values of the culture. If we understood how values actually are invented, we'd lose a lot of this "definition chase" in moral philosophy. If anything, what I see in above remarks is that "analysis of goodness" is thankless and, as BlueRidge implies or suggests, analysis of culture would go much farther.<br /><br />Now Sam Harris looks awfully unreasonable from the cultural perspective in ethics, for apparently wanting to eliminate one. I don't believe in killing anyone in the name of religion or anything else. <br /><br />What surprises and disappoints me is that Islam, according to those who criticize it, recommends exactly that. Is that true? I already know what Christians recommend for heretics ... but how do we get a world of peace from these warlike ideas? We can't decide whole cultures deserve to die. Millions of Muslims lead moral lives, based on their cultural values. If Sam Harris' instrumental view of ethics allows destruction of that, there's something wrong with a premise somewhere.<br /><br />Gee. Now I dont have to publish my book. People are getting it anyway. LOL. <br />gcGTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-64316844844306067492010-05-17T10:03:02.994+10:002010-05-17T10:03:02.994+10:00RichardW, I think I'm more a partial abolition...RichardW, I think I'm more a partial abolitionist than a fictionalist. I agree that my own language tends to avoid the use of straight-up categorical imperatives or anything similar that suggests that I buy into the moral overlay. It's deliberate. Mackie, Joyce and others, and my own independent thinking have made me conscious of this. I tend to talk more about what we "should" do, what our goals are, etc. And I never engage in moral rights talk, because I think moral rights talk is nonsense on stilts.<br /><br />Joyce tends to recommend fictionalism, though he hedges his bets. I'm not really with him on that, but I think that we can use a certain amount of conventional moral language in daily interactions without too much intellectual dishonesty.<br /><br />I also notice that a lot of what we say in informal settings really does seem more like noncognitive language. Philosophers who are cognitivists (as I am about paradigm moral claims such as "X is a morally wrong act") seem to overlook this.<br /><br />But I'm working this out as I go. What I'm clear on is that morality does not have the absolute, inescapable authority that Mackie, Joyce, etc., object to. It is ultimately grounded in human desires, etc., combined with facts about the world. Where we go from there is a difficult question.<br /><br />As for Harris ... he says things that suggest he agrees on this if pressed. But then he deprecates it by saying, in effect, that it's a trivial problem that would also affect the practice of medicine and science if we took it seriously. I don't think that works very well. The thing is, the problem probably <i>does</i> affect other practices, including medicine and science. But it doesn't affect every practice to the same degree.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82378033052766294542010-05-17T09:50:15.394+10:002010-05-17T09:50:15.394+10:00Roy, that could be a lot of work, if I started ana...Roy, that could be a lot of work, if I started analysing particular paras to extract a meaning that I'm not arguing for. But the stuff about torture is near the end - there's a long discussion round about page 190. To get it in context you probably need to read the whole of that chapter. Islam is discussed throughout, and again it would be difficult to go through cherrypicking passages that have led <i>other</i> people to an interpretation that I'm not defending. But you at least should read the chapter entitled "The Trouble with Islam". It's probably worth reading the whole book again - after all, it's a very readable book with lots of great material - to see whether you think the interpretation of Harris as adopting these extreme positions is fair.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-89502874011917726032010-05-17T07:27:15.068+10:002010-05-17T07:27:15.068+10:00Russell, I am deeply saddened to learn that there ...Russell, I am deeply saddened to learn that there are passages in <i>The End of Faith</i> that can be read by intelligent, well-meaning people as advocating "some kind of extermination program against Muslims or some kind of institutionalised practice of torture." Can you point me to the offending passages?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-35096267718882656512010-05-17T07:16:49.779+10:002010-05-17T07:16:49.779+10:00Russell said, Actually, Christian philosophy is la...Russell said, <i>Actually, Christian philosophy is largely based on Platonism. St Paul seems to have been very influenced by Platonism, as was the writer of the Gospel of John.</i><br /><br />I believe that this is an unexamined platitude, and that if you think about it for a moment, it will fall apart.<br /><br />The purpose of theology is to make a case for the proposition that it's good, both morally and intellectually, to believe in the Christian God.<br /><br />It is not possible to start with Plato and reason your way to (for example) the Holy Trinity. What happens, of course, is that a writer already committed to the idea of the Trinity drafts Plato into service as an amicus curiae. Essays composed in this fashion are not "based on Platonism", they merely cite Plato as an authority. What they are <i>based on</i> is <i>faith</i> -- as, in general, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22purpose+of+theology" rel="nofollow">the author will happily attest</a>.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46188362943735040062010-05-16T20:55:34.968+10:002010-05-16T20:55:34.968+10:00Russell: We can also judge moralities, i.e. positi...Russell: <i>We can also judge moralities, i.e. positive moral systems, by standards other than just whether or not they are identical to some supposedly objectively correct morality (in my view there's no such thing, but once again that depends on the meaning of "objective" and its cognates). Of course, those standards will be based on human desires, values, and so on, but that doesn't seem terribly problematic to me. I think I'm entitled to say: "This is a good moral system" or "This is a bad moral system."</i><br /><br />I suspect that what you're calling a moral standard is not what other people would consider a moral standard. It seems to me that what most people mean is a formula (in a broad sense) for evaluating (or generating) moral claims, like "this action is wrong". To be of any interest it must evaluate some such claims as true. But I think you've agreed that all such claims are false (or at least not true). So a moral standard in this sense makes false or fictional evaluations. Perhaps you're taking a moral fictionalist approach, and saying that a good moral standard is one which creates the sort of society that people generally want, by encouraging false but useful beliefs. But it seems you mean something else...<br /><br />Russell: <i>But I think we should (not that this is not necessarily a moral should) use moral talk that is more like our talk about hammers.</i><br /><br />I've noticed in the past that when you discuss matters of moral concern you tend to avoid terms of moral judgement and concentrate on talk about goals. That's fine. But I don't see how you can fit moral standards into such talk. I'll have to await your future posts to find out what you mean.<br /><br />Russell: <i>The point I was making in the post is something like this: they're thinking about morality like Y thinks about his weird tool.</i><br /><br />Yes, I agree. That point was a good one. I was concerned about a different sort of analogy between moral and non-moral talk, which maybe wasn't relevant to your post.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63363633603869925852010-05-16T10:28:10.220+10:002010-05-16T10:28:10.220+10:00Damn, I meant at one point above "Note that t...Damn, I meant at one point above "<i>Note</i> that this is not necessarily a moral 'should'."Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.com