Does LaClair accept the logic of the DoI?

[Guest Guest]

With the amount of time Paulie spends posting his nonsense on KOTW, my bet is he's an attorney with a lot of time on his hands. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So obviously you don't like Bryan either, right? He posts quite a bit too, you know.

[Guest Guest]

With the amount of time Paulie spends posting his nonsense on KOTW, my bet is he's an attorney with a lot of time on his hands.  Most likely he does an occasional closing on a home purchase.  And if you read a few of his better quotes, "Why is capital punishment OK"  or  "Why do people die at all", you come to the conclusion he hasn't spent any time in front of a jury. He's much more comfortable debating Bryan on KOTW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2stupid4words makes the understandable (in his case) mistake of transferrence. Just because it takes him an entire day to read one of Paul's posts doesn't mean it takes Paul more than a few minutes to write it.

2stupid reminds me of the man who was seen pumping his fist and shouting "Yeah! I did it!" in the middle of a public square one day. One of the man's friends went over to him and asked why he was so excited. Flushed with excitement, the man told his friend that he had just finished an extremely difficult jigsaw puzzle in only six months. When the friend asked what was so great about that, the man replied, "The box said three to five years! Yeah!"

If you check Paul out, you'll find that he limits his practice to personal injury cases, especially complex medical malpractice cases. I don't know that he has ever done a real estate closing. His reasons for coming to KOTW are obvious, as the matter involves his son. While the topic has veered off, it's still somewhat on point, and I suspect Paul is waiting for some sort of closure, which hasn't come yet.

As for Paul's questions, it's understandable that they would seem foolish to 2stupid, rather like casting pearls before swine --- not that 2stupid would understand that concept either. 2stupid, you had the uncharacteristic good sense not to use that self-mocking moniker for a while. Apparently stupid for you is like water seeking its own level. Do you really think you're challenging anyone?

[Guest Guest]

With the amount of time Paulie spends posting his nonsense on KOTW, my bet is he's an attorney with a lot of time on his hands.  Most likely he does an occasional closing on a home purchase.  And if you read a few of his better quotes, "Why is capital punishment OK"  or  "Why do people die at all", you come to the conclusion he hasn't spent any time in front of a jury. He's much more comfortable debating Bryan on KOTW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't this horse dead? Why does everyone want to keep beeting it? Get a life and move on!!!!!!!

[Bryan]

1. I wasn't applying "the scripture" (as if there was only one).

Sure you were. (In Christian parlance, "faith without works is dead.").

That's using a scripture passage as a dubious translation of what you wrote. By far the majority of Christians who would use this "parlance" would know its origin and context in the scripture--and it doesn't agree with the point you seem to be trying to make.

As for the "as if there was only one"--Paul's just joining Strife's club of nitpicking where he doesn't know what he's talking about.

((sometimes lowercase) a particular passage from the Bible; text.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scripture

In short, my usage correct and Paul's reply nonsense.

You have no idea whether I've contradicted myself or anyone else because you don't understand what I wrote.

Back it up.

Here's an example of what I was saying. Annie Sullivan's persistence in trying to teach six-year-old Helen Keller was an act of Faith. It would have mattered little that she believed her efforts could succeed, except that she put that belief into action. Without that, the active and creative component of Faith, her "faith" would have been dead. It has nothing to do with scripture. Read Tillich's little book on the subject. It's just how life works. We could say the same thing about a young person pursuing a college or professional degree, a scientist researching to discover a cure for a disease, a nation trying to put a man on the moon, etc. Those are all acts of Faith, and their creative power increases with their degree of difficulty.

a ) It has to do with scripture because you quoted scripture, whether you realized it or not. And, as such, the application was dicey.

b ) The "creative power" part I understand--to whatever degree it is coherent (I doubt its coherence).

Paul makes no successful point at #1. He took his own understanding of "scripture" to try to nitpick what I wrote, and provided no reasonable basis for doubting that I understood the point he was trying to make.

2. Incorrect. The creative force within Faith (the force that brings the Word and the Spirit tangibly into the world, to employ the metaphors within the Christian narrative) is the power of action as in the examples above.

Why is "the power of action as in the examples above" not fairly termed "motive"?

I can grant Paul's claim that my summation of his point was incorrect if he can coherently explain the difference between what he's saying and the way I characterized it.

To wit: Why would Anne Sullivan persist in teaching Helen absent motive? What difference would Paul describe between what he is talking about and motive?

"fewer intermediate boundaries between the will and rights than between the will and material things"--despite the attempt at clarification, produces more questions than it answers.

What are these supposed boundaries and how do they compare?

3. If we want to create an automobile, we need the materials and the technology. If we want to create a just society, we just need enough people to agree on the necessary values. That's not to say that the latter is less daunting than the former; in fact, just the contrary, the latter seems to be the more difficult task, but that is because we live in a culture that has wrapped its collective head around nonsense for the past several millennia, instead of living according to a universal respect for each person's humanity. We can create a just society through consistent application of collective will. We can't necessarily find a cure for AIDS.

Again the attempt at clarification produces more questions than it answers.

a) What values are "necessary" for justice, especially if we accept the view that we cannot ever give up on those who transgress? Or is that value reserved only for those we love (presumably not everyone, in Paul's recommended world)?

What is the basis for terming competing moral models "nonsense"?

What specific application of collective will produces a just society?

It seems to me that Paul takes his position so much for granted that he tends to fail to describe (or acknowledge) his presuppositions.

The next one is the question I most wanted to see Paul address.

If we create the concept of rights "whole" then doesn't this indicate that you were incorrect when you claimed an objective basis for morality?

Assuming you don't take simply take thinking about it as an "objective" process?

4. No. The one has nothing to do with the other. See my previous post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On to the previous post, then.

The reader should note that #4 is the issue where I believe Paul contradicted himself.

[Bryan]

Paul's position was that his system of morality is founded on an objective basis, and he has agreed that rights are based on morality.

Seems to me that if one were to make the will the "objective basis" for morality then one has devalued objectivity entirely.

Do you disagree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.

No what?

Have you reversed yourself on the idea that your moral system has an objective basis?

You disagree that if one makes the will an "objective basis" for something then a complete devaluation of objectivity results?

Or, you do not disagree with the second issue?

I love the ambiguous reply.

As usual, Bryan, you construe other people's arguments according to your resistance to them. You cannot understand them that way.

What did I miss about your claim regarding the objective basis for morality, then? Back up your accusation with at least one example, if you can.

Rights are inventions of the will. That is correct.

Can rights similarly be destroyed by the will? Or once a right exists does it exist perpetually from that moment on? For example, do you have the right to kill your children?

http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777121908/

In a nation ruled by tyrants, many are denied what we in more democratic countries would regard and basic civil and human rights.

That makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, most tyrants do have a will, so they can create (or destroy?) rights. If one is better than the other, what makes it so? Popularity? Or something else?

On both sides of the ledger (nations and societies that are free versus those that are not), the presence/absence of rights is governed by the human will.

Which human will? That of the masses? That of the rulers?

The difference between justice and injustice, as well as objectivity versus subjectivity, lies in whether those rights are forumalated in accordance with universally shared values.

lol

There's the fallback again--these mythical "universally shared values."

Now, earlier Paul had attempted to make "universal values" a plausible concept by claiming that the term referred to values that were a benefit to all. Yet now, the term "shared" has cropped up, making my earlier suspicion that Paul referred (rather fantastically) to values shared by all people, instead.

We are to believe, for example, that cannibals want what is best for their human entrees, and that Stalin simply had the best interests of the Ukrainians at heart.

That seems like utter nonsense on the face of it. Would Paul like to try to explain himself again?

With universally shared values like those, who needs cultural division?

If a culture's working conception of "rights" is arbitrarily or selectively formulated (e.g., "I have the right to own slaves," meaning "I have the right to be free but my slave does not"), then justice is denied.

How can that be, if rights are the product of the will? Where did the slave-owner go wrong? Did he neglect oil changes for his will after 100,000 miles? What?

That's a pretty widely accepted Truth among civilized peoples these days, and one worth enforcing by law, don't you think.

As if to suggest that the majority should rule? No worries about a tyranny of the majority?

Isn't the tyranny of the majority an oxymoron according to the view you've expressed above? I'd be hard-pressed to differentiate between your description and one of the forms of moral relativism.

On the other hand, if rights are formulated through and grounded in universally held preferences, e.g., preferences for health, satisfaction of material needs, happiness, fulfillment, etc., then justice prevails.

Again, this argument is a sham. If Mr. Smith wants health, satisfaction of material needs, happiness, fulfillment, etcetera for the Smiths then he does not share the values of a Mr. Jones who wants health, satisfaction of material needs, happiness, fulfillment, etcetera for the Joneses.

Hopefully I'm wrong, but I've yet to see Paul address this problem with his argument.

The values are only universal if all want the same benefits for the same group of people.

It is an objective justice (or you could call it intersubjective if you like) because it is derived from those universally shared preferences: so universally shared that when any of us names any of them most everyone reasonably understands what is meant; and furthermore there is a rough general agreement about what is most important (e.g., health is more important than owning a Ferrari). If there was nothing objective about it, that understanding wouldn't be possible.

The preferences are not universally shared--and that's only the most basic problem with Paul's argument.

As I understand your argument, we agree that everyone should be accorded certain rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You contend (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is possible and sustainable only if one believes in a creator.

Any atheist who believes in those rights as out of the reach of the government will be able, in principle, to function in society the Framers envisioned.

The problem comes when the atheist realizes that he cannot supply any philosophical foundation for his belief in those rights (LaClair's current argument serves as a case in point).

As I mentioned before, a society founded on contradiction may be expected to prove less stable than one not founded on contradiction.

LaClair would throw over the foundation suggested by the Framers in the Declaration of Independence, and he offers a substitute that he apparently believes is consistent. If he fairly considers the questions above, however, it is unlikely that he can maintain that view without compounding his fallacious reasoning.

I don't know how far you take that concept, and you refuse to tell us: is the Christian concept of God that must be adopted, or will some other suffice?

Heh. Where have I refused to tell you? I've repeatedly stated that the view of the Framers establishes an appropriate foundation. What did they believe? Have you no idea?

No matter, history proves over and over that mere belief in a creator does not create a just society, and if one looks at the scriptures of the various religions, especially those of the three main Western monotheisms, one sees a veritable parade of horrors.

So none of the monotheisms serves as a reliable and objective foundation for human rights. Quite the contrary in many cases.

From all appearances, Paul has just engaged in an argument from outrage. Rather than performing some logical demonstration of the failure of monotheisms to serve as a reliable and objective foundation for human rights, he opines that surely that cannot be just!

Not that he provided any model at all of a just society.

I contend that it's very simple. Honor all people. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Live according to widely proclaimed virtues, even when it isn't convenient. There is a powerful objectivity in that, and it has nothing to do with believing in a creator; it has everything to do with understanding what it is to be human.

Could you be specific about where the objectivity is supposedly located? The values are widely proclaimed, therefore they are objective? Tell me that's not what you're claiming, please. That looks like what you're saying.

In fact, the power of this central and fundamental Truth one of the reasons people turn to theistic religions. Some people claim that believing in a god makes people better. I contend the truth is exactly the opposite. Believing in what is not known offers too many convenient excuses to do whatever one chooses in the moment. There's nothing objective in that.

But that's exactly the apparent problem with LaClair's supposed "universal values." They don't appear to be universally recognized in principle, let alone in practice. I suppose LaClair could blame theism, but that seems a bit of a stretch with it comes to murderous luminaries such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Bryan, if you really want to make this discussion interesting, then tell us what your real agenda is. I can guess around its edges, but why should I?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My agenda is to make your agenda clear in the context of worldviews and in its application to modern society, and to offer an alternative (since your agenda will be found lacking because of internal contradictions).

Part of that process involves discussing the flaws in your worldview as you reveal them.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to make the discussion more interesting, but there you have it.

[Guest KearnyKard]

Isn't this horse dead? Why does everyone want to keep beeting it? Get a life and move on!!!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, how clever. Paulie is now posting as "Guest".

[Guest Guest]

2stupid4words makes the understandable (in his case) mistake of transferrence. Just because it takes him an entire day to read one of Paul's posts doesn't mean it takes Paul more than a few minutes to write it.

2stupid reminds me of the man who was seen pumping his fist and shouting "Yeah! I did it!" in the middle of a public square one day. One of the man's friends went over to him and asked why he was so excited. Flushed with excitement, the man told his friend that he had just finished an extremely difficult jigsaw puzzle in only six months. When the friend asked what was so great about that, the man replied, "The box said three to five years! Yeah!"

If you check Paul out, you'll find that he limits his practice to personal injury cases, especially complex medical malpractice cases. I don't know that he has ever done a real estate closing. His reasons for coming to KOTW are obvious, as the matter involves his son. While the topic has veered off, it's still somewhat on point, and I suspect Paul is waiting for some sort of closure, which hasn't come yet.

As for Paul's questions, it's understandable that they would seem foolish to 2stupid, rather like casting pearls before swine --- not that 2stupid would understand that concept either. 2stupid, you had the uncharacteristic good sense not to use that self-mocking moniker for a while. Apparently stupid for you is like water seeking its own level. Do you really think you're challenging anyone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as the BOE is concerned it is a dead issue. Paul continues to look for support in this forum but he doesn't like the outcome. Maybe he doesn't feel strongly enough about it to take it to the next level.

[Guest 2smart4u]

As far as the BOE is concerned it is a dead issue.  Paul continues to look for support in this forum but he doesn't like the outcome.  Maybe he doesn't feel strongly enough about it to take it to the next level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would love to know who the "Guests" are that come to Paulie's support on these previous threads, my guess is Paulie himself . Clever guy, that Paulie.

[Strife767]

Gee, how clever.  Paulie is now posting as "Guest".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm pretty sure Paul knows how to spell "beating," and knows that an exclamatory sentence ends in only one exclamation point.

[Guest Guest]

As far as the BOE is concerned it is a dead issue.  Paul continues to look for support in this forum but he doesn't like the outcome.  Maybe he doesn't feel strongly enough about it to take it to the next level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It appears it is a dead case. As Paul has already said here on Apr 30 2007, 04:43 PM "Bryan, this is your lucky day. My first case settled today." Through the rumor mill, the chatter is that the Board has "settled” with the LaClairs with some sort of financial settlement. Why do you think the board was so antsy at the recent board meeting? They got their budget passed and yet they still are worried about cutting finances. And why else do you think you have not heard the squeaky wheel professing about his son's innocence. Yes I do believe they have settled and hoping this is the end of it. We'll find out what institution the next future lawyer ends up in next year. And the townspeople will pay for it. Nice scam.

[Guest Paul]

Sure you were. (In Christian parlance, "faith without works is dead.").

That's using a scripture passage as a dubious translation of what you wrote. By far the majority of Christians who would use this "parlance" would know its origin and context in the scripture--and it doesn't agree with the point you seem to be trying to make.

As for the "as if there was only one"--Paul's just joining Strife's club of nitpicking where he doesn't know what he's talking about.

((sometimes lowercase) a particular passage from the Bible; text.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scripture

In short, my usage correct and Paul's reply nonsense.

Back it up.

a) It has to do with scripture because you quoted scripture, whether you realized it or not. And, as such, the application was dicey.

The "creative power" part I understand--to whatever degree it is coherent (I doubt its coherence).

Paul makes no successful point at #1. He took his own understanding of "scripture" to try to nitpick what I wrote, and provided no reasonable basis for doubting that I understood the point he was trying to make.

Why is "the power of action as in the examples above" not fairly termed "motive"?

I can grant Paul's claim that my summation of his point was incorrect if he can coherently explain the difference between what he's saying and the way I characterized it.

To wit: Why would Anne Sullivan persist in teaching Helen absent motive? What difference would Paul describe between what he is talking about and motive?

3. If we want to create an automobile, we need the materials and the technology. If we want to create a just society, we just need enough people to agree on the necessary values. That's not to say that the latter is less daunting than the former; in fact, just the contrary, the latter seems to be the more difficult task, but that is because we live in a culture that has wrapped its collective head around nonsense for the past several millennia, instead of living according to a universal respect for each person's humanity. We can create a just society through consistent application of collective will. We can't necessarily find a cure for AIDS.

Again the attempt at clarification produces more questions than it answers.

a) What values are "necessary" for justice, especially if we accept the view that we cannot ever give up on those who transgress? Or is that value reserved only for those we love (presumably not everyone, in Paul's recommended world)?

What is the basis for terming competing moral models "nonsense"?

What specific application of collective will produces a just society?

It seems to me that Paul takes his position so much for granted that he tends to fail to describe (or acknowledge) his presuppositions.

The next one is the question I most wanted to see Paul address.

4. No. The one has nothing to do with the other. See my previous post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On to the previous post, then.

The reader should note that #4 is the issue where I believe Paul contradicted himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, you're making meaningless debating points. I know the Bible is interpreted differently by literalists than by those who look for its symbolic meanings. I don't accept the literalists' assumptions, so when you offer them up as though they were to be taken as given, we can't have any real discussion because you're looking past what I'm saying. In this case the discussion is (or was) about Faith, and my point is that it is useful and creative more as an action than as a belief. If you really want to have a discussion, or a debate for that matter, you can't just dismiss the other person's argument by restating your own.

This is not nit-picking; in fact, your comment is thoroughly ironic coming from a master nit-picker. What we're trying to discuss --- or I am, at any rate --- is whether justice under a written constitution requires belief in a "creator." It does not. The values that make a just society possible are commonly understood because the life experience is universally shared. There's nothing hard about this concept if you want to understand it. The reason that the values that follow from our shared preferences aren't more consistently applied is that applying them requires us not to take advantage of others when we can.

That's the difference between rights and power. So when you ask in your other post "Do you have the right to kill your children," my ethical and moral answer is no, but my legal and practical answer is that it depends on where you live. That's not relativism. In fact, the moral relativists fall short because they fail to make that distinction. My moral and ethical answer is founded on our common humanity, and my children are as human and as much in Being as I am. However, in a society where that right is not recognized, and there have been many, the child has no right not to be killed by his parent, usually his father. Does the right exist in a culture that doesn't recognize it? In a legal and practical sense it does not, but in a moral and ethical sense we could say that it does. You can't just pretend the distinction doesn't matter because it does. Take away or ignore the distinction and you might as well ask how many angels can dance on a pinhead, as theologians did centuries ago. It's meaningless. I'm suggesting that we focus on what matters, namely, our lives and our happiness. We don't need a image of a supreme creator to do that. In fact, I think that any mediator --- any wall we put up between ourselves and the unvarnished truth is an impediment to justice, not a means toward it.

I'll leave Bryan with the question of Abraham who was about to slay his son. You're the one who asked the question about whether one has the right to kill his son. How do you justify a biblical world view in light of that?

[Bryan]

Something tells me that Paul is going to dodge more questions (okay, I peeked).

Again the attempt at clarification produces more questions than it answers.

a)  What values are "necessary" for justice, especially if we accept the view that we cannot ever give up on those who transgress?  Or is that value reserved only for those we love (presumably not everyone, in Paul's recommended world)?

What is the basis for terming competing moral models "nonsense"?

What specific application of collective will produces a just society?

It seems to me that Paul takes his position so much for granted that he tends to fail to describe (or acknowledge) his presuppositions.

The next one is the question I most wanted to see Paul address.

On to the previous post, then.

The reader should note that #4 is the issue where I believe Paul contradicted himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, you're making meaningless debating points.

Am I? I don't see any attempt at all in what you quoted that should count as me trying to make debating points, much less meaningless ones.

On the contrary, I'm trying to press toward a coherent understanding (if there is one) on your own debating points since, as noted, your explanation produces more questions than it answers.

You can either answer the questions or you can't--but you can always avoid them entirely, I suppose.

Is it a "debating point" to say which answer I anticipated most eagerly?

More likely, Paul is trying to score debating points by dismissing my post as an attempt to score "meaningless debating points."

I know the Bible is interpreted differently by literalists than by those who look for its symbolic meanings. I don't accept the literalists' assumptions, so when you offer them up as though they were to be taken as given, we can't have any real discussion because you're looking past what I'm saying.

If we accept the Bible symbolically, then there is no limit to the notions that might be expressed via "Christian parlance" regardless of how foreign the idea was from those of any Christian sect.

Have you noticed a high influence of peer pressure on your kids? In Christian parlance, that's "Go and do likewise."

In this case the discussion is (or was) about Faith, and my point is that it is useful and creative more as an action than as a belief.

Not really any need for attempting to use "Christian parlance" then--was there?

If you really want to have a discussion, or a debate for that matter, you can't just dismiss the other person's argument by restating your own.

The manner in which you formatted your reply makes it extraordinarily difficult to figure out what argument of mine you think was restated as though to refute your argument.

Is that by design? Do you think it assists discussion to use that format?

This is not nit-picking; in fact, your comment is thoroughly ironic coming from a master nit-picker.

To which comment do you refer? The one about "the scripture" referring to a single passage? Yes, that was nit-picking (nitpicking using stilts as chopsticks with a -5 bonus for dexterity).

What we're trying to discuss --- or I am, at any rate --- is whether justice under a written constitution requires belief in a "creator." It does not.

Paul should double-check the thread title and the opening post. The thread was started to give him the opportunity to explain his view on the logic of the Declaration of Independence.

The justice issue is being discussed in a different thread.

The thread featuring the discussion of justice leaves off here, and most recently Paul was being slow to reply to the issue of the infinite number of murders that might occur if a murderer is forgiven repeatedly.

The values that make a just society possible are commonly understood because the life experience is universally shared.

With sufficient faith the concept will not seem vacuous and/or self-contradictory?

This is a hilarious duck of the responsibility for offering a cogent explanation where Paul was once lauding the objectivity of his moral system.

Pol Pot, we assume, understood human life experiences. Thus, justice became possible.

There's nothing hard about this concept if you want to understand it.

We just seem to be lacking a tracing of the logical step from one to the other. Is Paul suggesting that I use blind faith to bridge the gap?

If the concept is very easy, then shouldn't a description of the logic be an elementary undertaking?

The reason that the values that follow from our shared preferences aren't more consistently applied is that applying them requires us not to take advantage of others when we can.

You seem to be saying that the reason people don't live morally good lives is because they make morally bad choices.

But this puts us right back to the issue of supposed "universal values"--every action can be explained--potentially--in terms of selfishness, even activity that trades on cooperation such as game theory.

Paul offers vacuous explanations, and papers over the difficulties by proclaiming that the critic doesn't understand.

LaClair should prove his point by providing sensible explanations where he is capable of doing so. Let him answer the critic with explanation instead of circumstantial ad hominem.

That's the difference between rights and power.

Huh? Haven't we just begged the question as to whether or not it is right to take advantage of others?

Taking advantage of others is arguably just as universal as the values espoused as universal by LaClair.

So when you ask in your other post "Do you have the right to kill your children," my ethical and moral answer is no, but my legal and practical answer is that it depends on where you live. That's not relativism.

It's equivocal.

If you simply answer "no" then it's not relativism. When you answer both yes and no you simply muddy the water.

In fact, the moral relativists fall short because they fail to make that distinction.

If they were to answer "no" as you did, then they would not be moral relativists. As you said yourself, "That's not relativism."

Apparently moral relativists fall short because they are moral relativists.

My moral and ethical answer is founded on our common humanity, and my children are as human and as much in Being as I am.

Didn't the Romans have a common humanity? As least as far as their sons and daughters?

But surely they knew that it was wrong so kill their children--after all, Paul's values are universal (or so I've heard).

However, in a society where that right is not recognized, and there have been many, the child has no right not to be killed by his parent, usually his father.

You mean no legal right, correct?

Because if you're serious about your universal moral values, then the Roman law was morally wrong. The children did have a right not to be killed by the parents, but the right was not recognized during certain periods of Roman rule.

Does the right exist in a culture that doesn't recognize it? In a legal and practical sense it does not, but in a moral and ethical sense we could say that it does. You can't just pretend the distinction doesn't matter because it does.

If the distinction matters, then moral relativism is an incorrect view, and LaClair seems to have cast his lot with moral absolutism (which makes me wonder why Paul seemed to ridicule moral absolutism elsewhere, according to my recollection).

With respect to truth-value, this means that a moral judgment such as ‘Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another. It is not true, or false, simply speaking.

So, when Paul answers "no" (about the right to kill his children) earlier, he doesn't know what he's talking about (since it's not really true or false)?

Again, Paul, your answer produces more questions than it answers. If you answer simply that there is no moral right to kill one's children regardless of Roman law way back when, then you are not a moral relativist.

If your answer simply meant that you were viewing Roman law in light of your modern view of morality, then your answer was vacuous, and you are (it seems) a moral relativist.

You succeeded in writing so much that you blurred the distinction you attempted to draw.

I hope you'll clarify your position to one side or the other, or if you're on the fence describe how you're able to remain there.

Take away or ignore the distinction and you might as well ask how many angels can dance on a pinhead, as theologians did centuries ago. It's meaningless. I'm suggesting that we focus on what matters, namely, our lives and our happiness.

I think it matters how we figure our lives and our happiness as the penultimate goal of society. Clearly it's not a "universal value" that everyone signs onto, or else the USSR and Red China would never have existed.

I don't think it's enough to take it as true because Paul says so, not even when Paul claims (minus evidential support) that it is some kind of universal value.

We don't need a image of a supreme creator to do that. In fact, I think that any mediator --- any wall we put up between ourselves and the unvarnished truth is an impediment to justice, not a means toward it.

Great, then I can expect you to tear down the wall obscuring your supposed "universal values" and reveal the unvarnished truth about them (that they are not universal at all as described).

I'll leave Bryan with the question of Abraham who was about to slay his son. You're the one who asked the question about whether one has the right to kill his son. How do you justify a biblical world view in light of that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Abraham knew that his son would not be slain; that there would be no consequence, no ultimate risk to Isaac, of offering him as a sacrifice.

How do I know that? The text relates that Abraham was promised that his line would continue through Isaac.

Previous chapter, verse 12.

Or I could just say that Abraham was only figuratively going to kill his son, since Paul likes the symbolic interpretation.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Paul]

Something tells me that Paul is going to dodge more questions (okay, I peeked).

Bryan, you're making meaningless debating points.

Am I? I don't see any attempt at all in what you quoted that should count as me trying to make debating points, much less meaningless ones.

On the contrary, I'm trying to press toward a coherent understanding (if there is one) on your own debating points since, as noted, your explanation produces more questions than it answers.

You can either answer the questions or you can't--but you can always avoid them entirely, I suppose.

Is it a "debating point" to say which answer I anticipated most eagerly?

More likely, Paul is trying to score debating points by dismissing my post as an attempt to score "meaningless debating points."

If we accept the Bible symbolically, then there is no limit to the notions that might be expressed via "Christian parlance" regardless of how foreign the idea was from those of any Christian sect.

Have you noticed a high influence of peer pressure on your kids? In Christian parlance, that's "Go and do likewise."

Not really any need for attempting to use "Christian parlance" then--was there?

The manner in which you formatted your reply makes it extraordinarily difficult to figure out what argument of mine you think was restated as though to refute your argument.

Is that by design? Do you think it assists discussion to use that format?

To which comment do you refer? The one about "the scripture" referring to a single passage? Yes, that was nit-picking (nitpicking using stilts as chopsticks with a -5 bonus for dexterity).

Paul should double-check the threat title and the opening post. The thread was started to give him the opportunity to explain his view on the logic of the Declaration of Independence.

The justice issue is being discussed in a different thread.

The thread featuring the discussion of justice leaves off here, and most recently Paul was being slow to reply to the issue of the infinite number of murders that might occur if a murderer is forgiven repeatedly.

With sufficient faith the concept will not seem vacuous and/or self-contradictory?

This is a hilarious duck of the responsibility for offering a cogent explanation where Paul was once lauding the objectivity of his moral system.

Pol Pot, we assume, understood human life experiences. Thus, justice became possible.

We just seem to be lacking a tracing of the logical step from one to the other. Is Paul suggesting that I use blind faith to bridge the gap?

If the concept is very easy, then shouldn't a description of the logic be an elementary undertaking?

The reason that the values that follow from our shared preferences aren't more consistently applied is that applying them requires us not to take advantage of others when we can.

You seem to be saying that the reason people don't live morally good lives is because they make morally bad choices.

But this puts us right back to the issue of supposed "universal values"--every action can be explained--potentially--in terms of selfishness, even activity that trades on cooperation such as game theory.

Paul offers vacuous explanations, and papers over the difficulties by proclaiming that the critic doesn't understand.

LaClair should prove his point by providing sensible explanations where he is capable of doing so. Let him answer the critic with explanation instead of circumstantial ad hominem.

That's the difference between rights and power.

Huh? Haven't we just begged the question as to whether or not it is right to take advantage of others?

Taking advantage of others is arguably just as universal as the values espoused as universal by LaClair.

So when you ask in your other post "Do you have the right to kill your children," my ethical and moral answer is no, but my legal and practical answer is that it depends on where you live. That's not relativism.

It's equivocal.

If you simply answer "no" then it's not relativism. When you answer both yes and no you simply muddy the water.

In fact, the moral relativists fall short because they fail to make that distinction.

If they were to answer "no" as you did, then they would not be moral relativists. As you said yourself, "That's not relativism."

Apparently moral relativists fall short because they are moral relativists.

My moral and ethical answer is founded on our common humanity, and my children are as human and as much in Being as I am.

Didn't the Romans have a common humanity? As least as far as their sons and daughters?

But surely they knew that it was wrong so kill their children--after all, Paul's values are universal (or so I've heard).

However, in a society where that right is not recognized, and there have been many, the child has no right not to be killed by his parent, usually his father.

You mean no legal right, correct?

Because if you're serious about your universal moral values, then the Roman law was morally wrong. The children did have a right not to be killed by the parents, but the right was not recognized during certain periods of Roman rule.

Does the right exist in a culture that doesn't recognize it? In a legal and practical sense it does not, but in a moral and ethical sense we could say that it does. You can't just pretend the distinction doesn't matter because it does.

If the distinction matters, then moral relativism is an incorrect view, and LaClair seems to have cast his lot with moral absolutism (which makes me wonder why Paul seemed to ridicule moral absolutism elsewhere, according to my recollection).

With respect to truth-value, this means that a moral judgment such as ‘Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another. It is not true, or false, simply speaking.

So, when Paul answers "no" (about the right to kill his children) earlier, he doesn't know what he's talking about (since it's not really true or false)?

Again, Paul, your answer produces more questions than it answers. If you answer simply that there is no moral right to kill one's children regardless of Roman law way back when, then you are not a moral relativist.

If your answer simply meant that you were viewing Roman law in light of your modern view of morality, then your answer was vacuous, and you are (it seems) a moral relativist.

You succeeded in writing so much that you blurred the distinction you attempted to draw.

I hope you'll clarify your position to one side or the other, or if you're on the fence describe how you're able to remain there.

Take away or ignore the distinction and you might as well ask how many angels can dance on a pinhead, as theologians did centuries ago. It's meaningless. I'm suggesting that we focus on what matters, namely, our lives and our happiness.

I think it matters how we figure our lives and our happiness as the penultimate goal of society. Clearly it's not a "universal value" that everyone signs onto, or else the USSR and Red China would never have existed.

I don't think it's enough to take it as true because Paul says so, not even when Paul claims (minus evidential support) that it is some kind of universal value.

We don't need a image of a supreme creator to do that. In fact, I think that any mediator --- any wall we put up between ourselves and the unvarnished truth is an impediment to justice, not a means toward it.

Great, then I can expect you to tear down the wall obscuring your supposed "universal values" and reveal the unvarnished truth about them (that they are not universal at all as described).

I'll leave Bryan with the question of Abraham who was about to slay his son. You're the one who asked the question about whether one has the right to kill his son. How do you justify a biblical world view in light of that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Abraham knew that his son would not be slain; that there would be no consequence, no ultimate risk to Isaac, of offering him as a sacrifice.

How do I know that? The text relates that Abraham was promised that his line would continue through Isaac.

Previous chapter, verse 12.

Or I could just say that Abraham was only figuratively going to kill his son, since Paul likes the symbolic interpretation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pol Pot's understanding of human values made it possible for him to live by them, but was no guarantee that he would do so.

Bryan's ability to have a reasoned discussion is no guarantee that he will do so. Explaining one's position is, of course, always the other person's responsibility.

Each of us values our life experience: our joys, our sorrows, our hopes our dreams. This is something each of us knows without having to read it in a book or even be told about it. Whether a society will choose to live by that as its foundational precept, universally applied, is a matter of choice. The Declaration of Independence affirms that precept, but attributes it to a creator. Our legal system takes no position on a creator, as it is entirely unnecessary to the application of and adherence to the principle, and on occasion is at odds with it. The principle can be seen in everything from the Golden Rule (which expresses the desired state when universally applied) to game theory (which applies evolutionary principles to elucidate the means by which the principle is realized). The mere fact that one can choose not to live that way does not change the fact that our shared humanity is the rational, objective and universal foundation for a system that is truly just --- in fact, whether implicit or explicit, and while it may go under many names, it is the only such foundation. As one religious scholar put it, all the rest is commentary.

What our ancestors did not realize two centuries ago is how strongly this is supported by mathematics, the evolutionary principle and the genetic background of our lives. Some people avoid those understandings like the plague, thinking that they debase life, but some of us realize that the truth is exactly the opposite: that as we learn more about ourselves and about how things really work, we see just a bit more of the glory that is possible in this universe and in particular in our world, and every tiny step seems like a grand accomplishment, a miracle. One can choose not to live that way, but having lived on both sides of the coin we have been tossing around, I vastly prefer this one; more important, this one is objectively better. Our shared humanity is a rational and a necessary foundation for a just system that would express the values of a written Constitution. Basing a legal system on something no one knows anything about is not. That is the essence and whole of this "discussion."

I was unaware that Bryan opened this topic to give me an opportunity to explain my position. That was most generous, but entirely unnecessary. And so I will shortly take my leave.

[Guest Guest]

Paul: "In fact, the power of this central and fundamental Truth one of the reasons people turn to theistic religions. Some people claim that believing in a god makes people better. I contend the truth is exactly the opposite. Believing in what is not known offers too many convenient excuses to do whatever one chooses in the moment. There's nothing objective in that."

Bryan: "But that's exactly the apparent problem with LaClair's supposed "universal values." They don't appear to be universally recognized in principle, let alone in practice. I suppose LaClair could blame theism, but that seems a bit of a stretch with it comes to murderous luminaries such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A genuine concern for all people (call it caring, love, or whatever you want to call it) is the foundation for any just system. The problem is not that people don't recognize these values, but that they don't live them. They abandon them when it suits their purposes in the moment.

There's no problem in what Mr. LaClair is saying. He's right. Mouthing the Golden Rule, "liberty and justice for all," or any of the other ways to state a commitment to honoring and respecting all people is easy. Living that way is entirely another matter. Religion should help us do that, but too often it doesn't. That is where religion goes astray, sometimes tragically and epically astray.

It is no defense of theism that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were not theists. Theism, per se, is not centered on what we have in common. That is why there are so many religions and why they so often fight with each other. Instead, it is centered a guess about the ultimate, which no human being knows a thing about. The point is not that theism is not the only "ism" that goes astray, but merely that it does go astray. It is bound to stray, because it is based on a guess instead of on what is known to be real. There are so many logical errors and fallacies in Bryan's arguments that it would take many pages to unravel them; however, if one wanted to take the time and space to do it, it could readily be done. His argument about Stalin, etc., is just one example. It's a ridiculous argument, a point that shouldn't be made, and yet it can take a paragraph to explain what is wrong with it. A badly knotted string can take a lot of unraveling. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.

Bryan's (often disingenuous) objections notwithstanding, the objective foundation for morality and ethics that truly produces "liberty and justice for all" is our shared humanity. Nothing can substitute for or replace it. It is the core of every universal statement, including "liberty and justice for all," "all men are created equal," the Golden Rule and many others. It is so simple and so obvious once you get it that it takes your breath away with its simplicity and its perfection. Maybe someday humanity will finally learn that lesson. "It's easy if you try."

[Bryan]

Pol Pot's understanding of human values made it possible for him to live by them, but was no guarantee that he would do so.

How do you know it was possible for Pol Pot to live by "human values"?

The fact is that Pol Pot has a human being, and he apparently didn't value the way you say that everyone values things.

The reader should note how Paul has been consistently sidestepping this yawning problem with "universally held" values.

Bryan's ability to have a reasoned discussion is no guarantee that he will do so. Explaining one's position is, of course, always the other person's responsibility.

Paul should explain Paul's position, yes. Otherwise, Paul is not having a reasoned discussion.

Each of us values our life experience: our joys, our sorrows, our hopes our dreams. This is something each of us knows without having to read it in a book or even be told about it.

Yet, somehow Pol Pot's hopes and dreams, though they do not appear to reflect "universally held" values are taken as an example of somebody (for some unknown reason) not behaving according to a "universally held" system of values.

The reasonable person, I think, should conclude that it is quite possible that Pol Pot valued things differently than some others. That, in fact, Pol Pot did not value things the way Paul says everyone values things.

In short, Pol Pot (and billions of others) serve as a counterexample to Paul's claims--yet Paul seems resolute in ignoring contrary data.

Is that reasonable?

Whether a society will choose to live by that as its foundational precept, universally applied, is a matter of choice.

So, now it's a potentially universal value?

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

My proposed system whereby everyone sends me $3,000 is also a potentially universal value. Not everyone will live by that as a foundational precept, unfortunately. It's a matter of choice.

The Declaration of Independence affirms that precept ["Each of us values our life experience: our joys, our sorrows, our hopes our dreams."--ed, Bryan], but attributes it to a creator.

Good move by them, since sense may be made out of morality stemming from a personal, transcendent creator. One need not worry about trying to claim that morals come from humans because humans hold them universally while being forced to admit that humans seem to hold other values instead on a regular basis.

In short, if you make humans the foundation for morality, the system comes crashing down in terms of its logic, which Paul has demonstrated rather adroitly with his defense of the viewpoint.

Our legal system takes no position on a creator, as it is entirely unnecessary to the application of and adherence to the principle, and on occasion is at odds with it.

The problem with Paul's claim above is that there isn't really any principle once the creator has been taken out of the equation.

Praise God for people like Paul who act as though morality is not simply his own invention, even though he can't coherently explain otherwise. Unfortunately, Nietzsche and others provided godless systems of morality that are reasoned far better than Paul's attempt.

I imagine it's my responsibility (not Paul's) to explain how having god as the foundation for morality is at odds with it (the legal system?).

What a great way to have a reasoned discussion!

The principle can be seen in everything from the Golden Rule (which expresses the desired state when universally applied) to game theory (which applies evolutionary principles to elucidate the means by which the principle is realized). The mere fact that one can choose not to live that way does not change the fact that our shared humanity is the rational, objective and universal foundation for a system that is truly just --- in fact, whether implicit or explicit, and while it may go under many names, it is the only such foundation.

In other words, no amount of contrary evidence can damage Paul's belief.

Simply amazing. Paul apparently isn't able to bring himself to question his system to the point of asking how he knows that "universally held" values are universally held despite the fact that people seem to almost universally live by a contrary set of values.

As one religious scholar put it, all the rest is commentary.

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it."

Why would the religious scholar recommend that people "learn" a value that is "universally held"?

Oops! LaClair took somebody out of context again!

Don't worry, LaClairites--Paul will not be deterred by contrary evidence. The religious scholar's words can only count in support of his argument--they can never be taken to undermine Paul's claims.

What our ancestors did not realize two centuries ago is how strongly this is supported by mathematics, the evolutionary principle and the genetic background of our lives.

Just wait until catfish evolve an appreciation for the concept.

Some people avoid those understandings like the plague, thinking that they debase life, but some of us realize that the truth is exactly the opposite: that as we learn more about ourselves and about how things really work, we see just a bit more of the glory that is possible in this universe and in particular in our world, and every tiny step seems like a grand accomplishment, a miracle.

Oh, the beauty of causal determinism, unintelligently conceived.

One can choose not to live that way, but having lived on both sides of the coin we have been tossing around, I vastly prefer this one; more important, this one is objectively better.

(bold emphasis added)

Yet Paul cannot coherently explain how it is "objectively" better without fallaciously begging the question--at least so far--and now seems to plead that it isn't even his responsibility to explain himself.

Apparently we can accept it on faith, or maybe I'll explain it at some point.

Our shared humanity is a rational and a necessary foundation for a just system that would express the values of a written Constitution.

Repeat it often enough and it will become true?

Paul has not been able to explain how it is rational.

Paul has not been able to explain how it is "necessary" or how it can be known to be "just" in any objective sense.

What's the point of claiming that something is rational if you can't explain it?

Is it out of the hope that the jury of public opinion will accept the claim without question?

Basing a legal system on something no one knows anything about is not.

Heh. Paul commits another logical fallacy.

About X, Paul knows something (no one knows anything about it).

Paul claims that nothing about X is known.

Either Paul does not know that nothing about X is known, or Paul's statement that nothing is known about X is a false statement.

That's logic, and LaClairites should be concerned about LaClair's ineptitude regarding its use.

The hilarious part is that I pointed out this fallacy (an Islamic version of it) in an earlier post (though I can't verify off the top of my head whether or not KOTW has gotten around to publishing it yet).

And that's not even the end of Paul's problem. He has yet to realize that his system has all of the epistemic difficulties that he would find in a theistic moral system.

That is the essence and whole of this "discussion."

This isn't a discussion, Paul, or at least it ceased to be a discussion after you failed to respond to criticisms of your position.

I was unaware that Bryan opened this topic to give me an opportunity to explain my position. That was most generous, but entirely unnecessary. And so I will shortly take my leave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason a reasoned discussion cannot take place beyond this point is because Paul ignores the criticisms of his argument in favor of restating the argument.

[Bryan]

A genuine concern for all people (call it caring, love, or whatever you want to call it) is the foundation for any just system.

How do you know that?

The problem is not that people don't recognize these values, but that they don't live them. They abandon them when it suits their purposes in the moment.

How do you know that?

Isn't your claim comparable to the theist argument that atheists hate god?

There's no problem in what Mr. LaClair is saying.

Other than the fallacies and the failure to establish the "objective" basis we were promised, you mean?

He's right. Mouthing the Golden Rule, "liberty and justice for all," or any of the other ways to state a commitment to honoring and respecting all people is easy.

Claiming objectivity is also easy, for that matter.

It is no defense of theism that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were not theists.

Red herring. It was not used as a defense of theism. It was used to provide an example of a massive movement that placed the interests of the state over personal concerns like happiness, material needs, etc.

The counterexample was lost on those who follow Paul with blind faith. No matter how rampant contrary values systems are, they will blindly affirm that Paul's system is universal.

Theism, per se, is not centered on what we have in common.

Atheism, per se, is not centered on what we have in common.

That is why there are so many religions and why they so often fight with each other.

That is why there are so many atheisms and why they so often fight with each other. Though, thankfully, they've been in the minority to the point where they haven't had the opportunity for even more bloodshed.

Hopefully "Guest" will get around to explaining the "theism" tangent. I'm just playing along for now.

Instead, it is centered [around] a guess about the ultimate, which no human being knows a thing about.

You haven't figured out the fallacy in that claim, eh?

What is known about atheism, by the way, in terms of correspondence to reality?

The point is not that theism is not the only "ism" that goes astray, but merely that it does go astray. It is bound to stray, because it is based on a guess instead of on what is known to be real.

If only "Guest" weren't too blind to see that Paul couldn't make his "objective" foundation real.

Paul couldn't even bring himself to argue for his position much beyond restating it repeatedly.

In the end, he would be forced to assume that the values he says are "universally held" are, in fact, universally held, and that would beg the question fallaciously. Alternatively, he could appeal to the naturalistic fallacy (look it up if you must) or to an appeal to the people.

I assure you that neither appeal would get Paul very far.

He can't deliver on his claims, yet you blindly overlook the gaping holes in his argument.

There are so many logical errors and fallacies in Bryan's arguments that it would take many pages to unravel them; however, if one wanted to take the time and space to do it, it could readily be done. His argument about Stalin, etc., is just one example. It's a ridiculous argument, a point that shouldn't be made, and yet it can take a paragraph to explain what is wrong with it. A badly knotted string can take a lot of unraveling. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.

If you wish to make it look like I have made "many logical errors and fallacies" (what's the difference between a logical error and a fallacy, BTW?), then I recommend that you start with one good example.

That still hasn't been done, thanks to that affinity you and others have for straw men.

I used Stalin and Pol Pot to undermine Paul's claim that universally held values are universally held--it had nothing to do with arguing for theism as you falsely supposed.

Is it up to me to prove that Pol Pot did or did not place value on the Golden Rule?

Bryan's (often disingenuous) objections notwithstanding, the objective foundation for morality and ethics that truly produces "liberty and justice for all" is our shared humanity.

Paul is no doubt relieved that somebody else is here to relieve him of the burden of restating the conclusion of his argument.

Nothing can substitute for or replace it.

Nothing can substitute for or replace an argument in favor of that claim--least of all restating the claim over and over again.

It is the core of every universal statement, including "liberty and justice for all," "all men are created equal," the Golden Rule and many others. It is so simple and so obvious once you get it that it takes your breath away with its simplicity and its perfection. Maybe someday humanity will finally learn that lesson. "It's easy if you try."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"All men are created equal" and "Imagine" in almost the same breath.

If either you or Paul is serious about "no possessions" then I invite you each to start by sending me $3,000. That should serve as a good start for each of you to show how to go without possessions.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Bryan