Comments on: Ten Answers from an Austro-Athenian

By: Aster

Aster — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:04:44 +0000

Are you arguing for something close to deism, except that instead of claiming that God sets the rules and does nothing, you’re suggesting that God *is* the rules and that’s it?

If so, why are the rules any more suggestive of divinity than existence itself?

And, is logic the only way to apprehend this transcendent structure?

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:16:00 +0000

I think I meant to show that in the one case, where I consider morality to be in play, there involves an interaction between moral agents, and the violation of the interaction warrants interference by a second or third party; but in the other, there is no interaction between two or more parties, nor is it warranted. So if both would be considered part of being moral, why would it be ok for me to interfere with one but not the other? This would suggest two ‘tiers’ of morality, which is really just another way of saying they are two separate (related in some way) things.
…
Well, I haven’t read two of the philosophers much if at all, so I can not be a big fan of Kant (who is considered abstruse – so I haven’t tackled him yet), or Aquinas (who is more known for theological things? Not as interested in that per se). Rand I am not a fan of. She seems to produce largely two camps of people: zealous zombies who are choir boys for Republican pseudo free-markets and big-corporatism, and people who hate libertarians because she is the most well-known to outsiders. Lastly, Aristotle. He delved into nearly everything, but seemed to be mediocre (at best) in all he touched.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:41:31 +0000

but of the philosophers you list, I’m not a big fan of a (minor) majority.

Well, my point was that thinkers who agree with each other on so little still agree on this point.

Out of curiosity, though, which folks on the list are you not a big fan of?

By: Roderick

Roderick — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:39:25 +0000

I don’t regard self duties and virtues as part of morality, but as something else. For example I would forcefully stop someone from murder or theft, but I would not forcefully stop suicide or personal property waste/destruction.

As a libertarian, I of course agree with you on the 2nd sentence above, but I don’t see what it has to do with the first sentence. Unless you are equating “morality” with “stuff it’s okay to enforce”? If so, why? That seems like an eccentric use of the term.

I would say that interpersonal duties are a subset of morality, and that duties it’s permissible to enforce are a subset of interpersonal duties.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:24:18 +0000

Interesting. I don’t regard self duties and virtues as part of morality, but as something else. For example I would forcefully stop someone from murder or theft, but I would not forcefully stop suicide or personal property waste/destruction. Certainly the idea is not eccentric, but of the philosophers you list, I’m not a big fan of a (minor) majority.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:58:55 +0000

I’m the other way around; I accept (a version of) the argument against private languages, but I don’t accept the view that morality requires interpersonal interaction (except in the boring sense that we would never have survived infancy, let alone acquired moral cocnepts, without other people’s assistance). Most traditional conceptions of morality assume that in addition to other-regarding duties/virtues there are self-regarding duties/virtues. This is something that Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hume, Kant, Mill, and Rand all agree on, so it can’t be terribly eccentric.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:19:28 +0000

I assume this is a tautology. Is there some definition of morality that allows for good and bad acts in a personal universe?

There are similar arguments in the philosophy of language that there can be no ‘personal languages’ i.e. language requires more than one agent. Not exactly analogous IIRC; and actually I find the ‘no personal language’ language argument less persuasive than the moral argument.

The Trinity might possibly get around this line of reasoning, but I personally don’t think the Trinity is coherent.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 04:02:12 +0000

Morality requires interaction between moral agents (ie. more than one

I suppose the concept of the Trinity could be used to get around that. But my main question is: whence comes the premise that morality requires interaction between moral agents?

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:57:46 +0000

I agree with your assessment about God being amoral and I think it has Biblical evidence to support it. You have supplied one half of the argument, I will try to show the other.

Morality requires interaction between moral agents (ie. more than one). ‘Before’ creation, there were no moral agents. God is eternal and unchanging. God is amoral.

By: 10 Answers from an Atheist… [part 2/2] | Understanding Your Cat

10 Answers from an Atheist… [part 2/2] | Understanding Your Cat — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:22:43 +0000

[...] T. Long posted his own answers on his entry Ten Answers from an Austro-Athenian. Check it out after you’re done.) 6. Meaning In the atheist worldview we are products of [...]