tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8048601338930469712..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: About This BlogAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88908818911585468392011-09-21T18:55:48.358-06:002011-09-21T18:55:48.358-06:00if athiest had not been in the title i probably wo...if athiest had not been in the title i probably would not have come here to read (you can decide if you regeret that decision ;p ) <br /><br />not becous i was perticularly interested in argument against theims and for evolution (i have already decided this issue sufficiently until new evidence is produced)<br /><br />but i was interested in ethics and when your site said athiest ehticist i new i could read and learn about an ethical argument that i had not already discounted as false. whereas i site title ethicist would not have had that garantee. (though when i saw it was called desire utilitarianism i almost didnt read it because i had discounted many other forms of utility (i had assumed it was desire act utilitarianism...it could use a different name just to keep people who have rejected utilitarianism in the past from skipping over it, i almost did)<br /><br />so much of surfing the web is about finding the few gems out there among the multitudes of sites. there are so many people who call themselves ethicists that i dont have time to read. with your site name i new i would get something new that at least it wasnt going to assert one system i had already discounted. which let it stand above the rest at least enough to deserve the intial click. which is the most important click.Kristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08544209777124068097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30712464993615716542009-02-13T13:28:00.000-07:002009-02-13T13:28:00.000-07:00Correction noted, Alonzo. I thought about the nece...Correction noted, Alonzo. I thought about the necessity of relevant beliefs after I made the post, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to correct myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1252596511060312182009-02-13T12:42:00.000-07:002009-02-13T12:42:00.000-07:00Alonzo,Thanks for the clarification. I can certai...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification. I can certainly agree with your assessment of desires being the only reason (as you have defined it) for human action.<BR/><BR/>I am curious as to the actual metaphysical state of a desire:<BR/><BR/>Do desires exist or are we merely describing a physical process? <BR/><BR/>Perhaps a desire is merely a neuron firing in position P at time T such that I now possess some mental disposition towards an action? <BR/><BR/>So perhaps the desire is the mental disposition that resulted from P at T? But then what exactly is the mental disposition? Just another P at T from all I can figure. <BR/><BR/>You may have already written on this topic elsewhere, and if so a link would suffice. Just in general I'm wondering about what a desire <B>is</B>.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again,<BR/>DavidDavid Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13714637134009580948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13606181083532058892009-02-13T12:17:00.000-07:002009-02-13T12:17:00.000-07:00Marc C.Desires are not a sufficient condition for ...<B>Marc C.</B><BR/><BR/>Desires are not a sufficient condition for intentional (voluntary) action.<BR/><BR/>Beliefs are necessary.<BR/><BR/>A person with a desire that P, but no beliefs, will have no idea whether P is true or false, or how to make or keep P true. The <I>means</I> of human action is selected by beliefs. The <I>ends</I> of human action are selected by reason.<BR/><BR/>Another necessary condition is a connection from the brain to the muscles that then cause the actions. The brain of a parapalegic is filled with beliefs and desires. Their failure to generate intentional action is due to the fact that the mesage cannot reach the muscles.<BR/><BR/>When I talk about desires being reasons for actions, I admit that the term "reasons" is ambiguous. In one sense, all causes are reasons. The reason that the building caught fire was because there was an oily rag near the pilot light on the heater.<BR/><BR/>However, when we ask about a person's reasons for doing something (e.g., "Why did you leave the party early," we are not asking about causes. We are asking about the agent's objectives or goals.<BR/><BR/>It is this second sense of the word "reasons" that I use when I say that desires are the only reasons for action that exist. They are not the only cause, but they are the only entity that supplies goals.<BR/><BR/>Now, a being with perfect knowledge but no desires, would know how to get whatever he wants. But, he would not want anything, so he would not act. He would have no <I>reason</I> to act - no objective or purpose to aim for. He would sit there, doing nothing, entirely apathetic and indifferent about everything.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21109271432548888812009-02-13T10:59:00.000-07:002009-02-13T10:59:00.000-07:00david said:I agree that desires are necessary cond...david said:<BR/><I>I agree that desires are necessary conditions for voluntary human action; however your statement sounds as if you believe them to be sufficient conditions. Is that correct?</I><BR/><BR/>Alonzo states that desires are the only reasons for action that exist. He's saying that in a given situation in which a person is given alternatives to choose among, with the capacity to pursue any of them, the choice will always be made because of the existence of some desire within the mind of the person making the choice.<BR/><BR/>So if a voluntary human action has been committed, a desire to perform that action was present. You and Alonzo agree on at least that much. But he's also saying that everything that would decide between the choice to perform one action and the choice to perform another, or none at all, is a desire--that nothing other than desires motivate the selection of one thing among alternatives.<BR/><BR/>I don't see how this could possibly be incorrect, and I was trying to see if you could Agree with Alonzo on it. You said you didn't agree with him on anything, but I thought this point was simple enough that it would be impossible to <I>not</I> agree with him on it. If you still disagree with him on the uniqueness of desire as a deciding factor, then I would like to know why.<BR/><BR/>Here's an example:<BR/>Let's say that X believes that god G wants him to do Y, but G won't force him to do it. Let's also assume that there is no outside interference, so that the choice of X to do Y is entirely free in the normal sense of the term. If X does Y, it will be because of a desire--whether the desire is to satisfy G or not. If X has no desire to do Y--for whatever reason--then X definitely will not do Y. This is to say that desires are the only reasons for action that exist--if no desire, then no [voluntary] action.<BR/><BR/>That's all I meant to get at in my post. If you still have issues with what I'm saying, feel free to respond again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19427115344720441462009-02-12T12:46:00.000-07:002009-02-12T12:46:00.000-07:00Mark C. said:...desires are the only reasons for a...Mark C. said:<BR/><I>...desires are the only reasons for action that exist</I><BR/><BR/>I agree that desires are necessary conditions for voluntary human action; however your statement sounds as if you believe them to be sufficient conditions. Is that correct?<BR/><BR/>Mark C. said:<BR/><I>Even if a god existed, what it ordered people to do would be a consequence of its desires.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think this conclusion is easily evidenced, unless you are assuming the Christian God in your term "god." <BR/><BR/>Even so, in what sense would god have desires if we assume this being posesses all actual knowledge and experiences all actual time/space simultaneously? I don't think it is as easy as saying "well god would be this way too."David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13714637134009580948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28031802471563864762009-02-12T06:54:00.000-07:002009-02-12T06:54:00.000-07:00David,One thing that I don't think anyone can get ...David,<BR/><BR/>One thing that I don't think anyone can get around is that desires are the only reasons for action that exist. Even if a god existed, what it ordered people to do would be a consequence of its desires.<BR/><BR/>Do you agree with that much?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-64559132090385788692009-02-11T13:31:00.000-07:002009-02-11T13:31:00.000-07:00I just wanted to say thanks for writing this blog....I just wanted to say thanks for writing this blog. I don't think I've made any comments yet, but I read every post. You've really make me think about my ethics and the choices I make. I'm sure there are a lot of readers that feel the same way. I'm glad you named your blog what you did because otherwise I would probably have never stumbled across it. Thank you for writing =)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747325969383583252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63305088810148193602009-02-11T09:06:00.000-07:002009-02-11T09:06:00.000-07:00The number of people that stop to think about righ...The number of people that stop to think about right/wrong and philosophy are tragically few, for atheists as well as believers of any faith. Much of it probably has to do with personality types, and also general apathy or laziness. <BR/><BR/>I am a Christian, and don't hold that virtue is exclusive to the religious. I hold that God as creator is the divine source of virtue, and Jesus is the perfect human model of virtue, much like D'Souza. But the fingerprint of God is in every part of his creation, and not reserved to those who believe what I do.<BR/><BR/>I can't do anything about the unfortunate atrocities committed in the name of faith, and atheists can do nothing about the atrocities committed in the name of reason, enlightenment, and egalité. I think you know this, and your blog gives hope that a small minority on both sides can find common ground, even if your comments about faith are often dismissive in a way that I find objectionable. It's not my job to proselytize you if you are not open to it, so it is water off a duck's back.Justus Hommeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660099253980153951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74325118312220020132009-02-11T08:10:00.000-07:002009-02-11T08:10:00.000-07:00Alonzo,I'm a Christian who enjoys your blog, but h...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>I'm a Christian who enjoys your blog, but have yet to agree with anything you've written. I'm still in the process of examining your terms and digesting the philosophical aspects of desire utilitarianism. Luckily, your concise writing style makes this a pleasure! <BR/><BR/>One thing is for sure: you have a more consistent view of morality then many atheists I've studied such as Dan Barker, Michael Shermer, and Christopher Hitchens.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested to see you examine the argument from morality as put forth by Christian apologists.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>DavidDavid Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13714637134009580948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47026361807569964362009-02-11T05:20:00.000-07:002009-02-11T05:20:00.000-07:00I agree with your virtue over vice remark. I think...I agree with your virtue over vice remark. I think it's more important to illustrate and demonstrate the fact that virtue is not the principle domain of the faithful, that anyone with a lick of sense and conscience should feel obligated to be doing the good. It doesn't have to be a war against theists. I think atheists would be far better off reacting to theists ethically rather than by mocking their beliefs all the time. It doesn't do "our" side any favours.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-60069076997808719302009-02-11T04:40:00.000-07:002009-02-11T04:40:00.000-07:00Look at it this way: you are at least as much an a...Look at it this way: you are at least as much an atheist blog as Pharyngula is a science blog.vjackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-22980481645221257742009-02-11T00:16:00.000-07:002009-02-11T00:16:00.000-07:00Speaking of blogs dealing with ethics that just ha...Speaking of blogs dealing with ethics that just happen to be written by atheists...<BR/><BR/>http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/<BR/><BR/>I've just discovered your blog, and I really like your approach. (Gee... it's a lot like mine.) I've added it to my bookmarks, and will be a regular reader.Hambydammithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307322997038298862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39610100468976955522009-02-10T23:49:00.000-07:002009-02-10T23:49:00.000-07:00I would say that you do deserve to be counted amon...I would say that you do deserve to be counted amongst atheist blogs because you do touch on anti-atheist bigotry, the negative effects of religious morality, and the separation of church and state. All topics very popular with the atheosphere.Friar Zerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431615054243185192noreply@blogger.com