Ichthus77 - 24 April 2010 06:30 AM

Teapot?  So, would you say Sam Harris’ claim of objective moral truth (sans free will!) is a teapot?—or just my inability to give up my intuitive sense of free will?

You sillies.

We have abstract thought—we can therefore examine the chain (even while being part of it) and add our own spice to it (as far as we are aware).  I’m betting Popper wrote about this (judging by what little I began to read of his “The Self and Its Brain”), and though I don’t agree w/ everything he said—I’m betting I agree w/ him on this.

I will grant that the more you know, the more options you have, and the less you know, the less you are free to choose options (because you can’t conceive of them)—however, free will refers only to the ability to choose between conceivable options.

You might argue that how you choose is determined by your nature/nurture (would you grant that “the fact we ‘can’ choose” is made possible by your nature/nurture?).  I grant that nature/nurture influences how you choose, but that you can also transcend such influence (as far as you are aware of it, if you so choose—and if you don’t, you’re still transcending…you’re just choosing to go w/ the flow…“om”...not always recommended)—possessing abstract thought—and, in that way, you influence your nurture (and its influence on your brain).  It goes both ways w/ beings who have abstract thought.

I don’t have to “prove” it.  In this context, I only have to say that Harris is contradicting himself.  Free will and moral responsibility are inseparable.  Nix one, you nix the other—but, you may be only nixing in your imagination.

I’m not going to keep this discussion going, so I’ll be in the Moral Truth Litmus thread.

Math may determine that 2+2=4 but we can transcend such influence and choose 5. I’ll be in my cave, sitting by my burning bush, reading out of my magic hat, if anyone needs me.

Thalamus - 10 April 2010 03:43 PM

But the more I read the more I become convinced that there have to be moral truths whether we can ever learn them or not, and it’s relieving to know that many of my intellectual heroes are on my side. To name a few:
...Christopher Hitchens

While Hitchens believes morality is innate, and likely believes in moral truth, I haven’t seen any evidence that he buys into the kind of objective morality Sam is peddling. Do you have some evidence for this?

buybuydandavis - 20 June 2010 09:51 PM

Thalamus - 10 April 2010 03:43 PM

But the more I read the more I become convinced that there have to be moral truths whether we can ever learn them or not, and it’s relieving to know that many of my intellectual heroes are on my side. To name a few:
...Christopher Hitchens

While Hitchens believes morality is innate, and likely believes in moral truth, I haven’t seen any evidence that he buys into the kind of objective morality Sam is peddling. Do you have some evidence for this?

I don’t see any evidence to the contrary, and since both, as you appear to agree, clearly believe in moral truth I simply fuse them together as anti-relativists. That’s good enough for me.

Thalamus - 22 June 2010 08:11 PM

I don’t see any evidence to the contrary, and since both, as you appear to agree, clearly believe in moral truth I simply fuse them together as anti-relativists. That’s good enough for me.

That is an unwarranted assumption. A person could believe that moral truth is relative to the moral sentiments of each person. Morally true, according to your moral sentiments, but not according to mine. “Steak is yummy” is certainly true for me, though ymmv. Christopher says that morality is innate in all of us - we all have dna too, but it doesn’t mean our dna is all the same.

I think this is particularly relevant to believers. If, as they say, morality comes as a gift from God, why do they assume that can’t God give me a toy soldier, and you a teddy bear? If morality, according to them, is behaving in accord with God’s will, how do they know that God wills us all to behave the same way?

If God is going to create his Symphony of the Universe, why assume that we wants us all to be violins? Maybe he wants some flutes too. And even a few electric guitars.

buybuydandavis - 22 June 2010 10:57 PM

Thalamus - 22 June 2010 08:11 PM

I don’t see any evidence to the contrary, and since both, as you appear to agree, clearly believe in moral truth I simply fuse them together as anti-relativists. That’s good enough for me.

That is an unwarranted assumption. A person could believe that moral truth is relative to the moral sentiments of each person. Morally true, according to your moral sentiments, but not according to mine. “Steak is yummy” is certainly true for me, though ymmv. Christopher says that morality is innate in all of us - we all have dna too, but it doesn’t mean our dna is all the same.

I think this is particularly relevant to believers. If, as they say, morality comes as a gift from God, why do they assume that can’t God give me a toy soldier, and you a teddy bear? If morality, according to them, is behaving in accord with God’s will, how do they know that God wills us all to behave the same way?

If God is going to create his Symphony of the Universe, why assume that we wants us all to be violins? Maybe he wants some flutes too. And even a few electric guitars.

Moral Truth = Objective Morality

To say that each person harbors their own moral truth is a clear oxymoron.

Thalamus - 23 June 2010 04:27 PM

Moral Truth = Objective Morality
To say that each person harbors their own moral truth is a clear oxymoron.

Feel free to assert that all you like, but don’t expect to win the day by assertion alone.

Is it true that “Steak is yummy”? That’s true for me, but not for others. Does that make it Objectively Yummy? Objectively Unyummy?

Consistency with a person’s moral sentiments is a perfectly well defined concept, and much better defined than Objective Morality.

But back to the original issue, on whether a belief in moral truth by Hitchens necessarily implies that he believes in your Objective Morality, you should at least recognize that objectively the implication does not follow for many people, and Hitchens may be one of those people, regardless of how much you believe those people are mistaken.