tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Atheist EthicistAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger10892120tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-84934267381922961162020-01-10T12:25:36.800-07:002020-01-10T12:25:36.800-07:00As with many other purportedly external activities...As with many other purportedly external activities (like prayer, for instance) the real benefit of condemnation is in the mind of the condemnor. It doesn't matter that the condemnee is dead (like Hitler), incorrigible (like Trump) or simply out of ones reach (or indeed, even imaginary). The act of condemnation settles accountability in the mind of the person doing the act and so relieves stress. It resolves ambiguity; it absolves the condemnor of any possible blame (e.g. for inaction); it satisfies. Formally and firmly placing blame on a third party provides a satisfying psychological benefit, irrespective of its moral basis.David Cortesihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760661115101469280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73177792025563561252019-01-01T01:52:09.528-07:002019-01-01T01:52:09.528-07:00I think "desirism" is a kind of moral ru...I think "desirism" is a kind of moral rule or moral lesson by referring to what the people with good desires would perform. This is good, but unfortunately there are many different customs and norm in this world, where in one hemisphere was considered good, but not good in the other hemisphere. Take an example of a habitual way of eating. Some easterners have a habit of chatting with each other while eating, eating using their hands, and sipping soup straight from the bowl, while some westerners consider it was rude.<br /><br />Desire conflict between two masses can also occur in the political world, eventhough the desire of both are equally have the good intention. Take the example of the United States government shutdown due to the wall. So I think "desirism" maybe more simple as a reference at the micro level, but not as simple as at the macro level.<br /><br />I think, desirism a way of using human's logical thinking to formulate or logicized the moral value of what the people with good desires would perform. That's not a bad things. I also do that using an analogy in my recent post. Please read it if you have time.Tiknohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05733973438543735098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59999695399517277612018-12-30T03:03:05.912-07:002018-12-30T03:03:05.912-07:00Well . . . desirism does not even try to put "...Well . . . desirism does not even try to put "obligation" and "prohibition" up against "affection" to see who wins in a battle. Rather, it defines "obligation" and "prohibition" in terms of what people have reason to promote universally as objects of affection (or of desire). Indeed, the virtuous person has a particularly strong affection for doing that which is a right and will not even want to do that which is wrong.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-33713091468426924382018-12-29T10:07:55.133-07:002018-12-29T10:07:55.133-07:00This post requires deep understanding to understan...This post requires deep understanding to understand it.<br />I think, affection will overcome everything called obligation, prohibition, and permission. That's my simple way.Tiknohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05733973438543735098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14335645882785187682018-12-19T07:32:48.761-07:002018-12-19T07:32:48.761-07:00That is a hard question to answer briefly. It is a...That is a hard question to answer briefly. It is a large subject and . . . I agree with some, and disagree with some.<br /><br />I have written somewhere . . . Peter Abelard (1079–1142) is the first proponent of desirism. He substantially makes the case that actions cannot be the primary object of moral evaluation but can only be evaluated as a sign of an individual's mental states. Those mental states are the proper object of moral evaluation.<br /><br />Another part that I particularly agree with - and is a part of my admiration of Martin Luther King and Ghandi - is the principle that obligations are tied to moral facts and not human law. Human law must conform to the natural moral facts or, at least insofar as obligations and motivation is concerned, they are "no law at all" (there is more reason to disobey them than to obey them).<br /><br />And, indeed, I hold that there are moral facts, and you can't discover those moral facts by searching your feelings. Morality is not found in what you feel, but in what you ought to feel.<br /><br />I disagree with the claim that these moral facts come from divine law. However, this is not a significant difference, as I see it. If you allow that God created the universe, then God created a universe in which desires exist and desires relate to each other the way they do.<br /><br />I also disagree with the claim that there is a proper "teleos" (end, goal, purpose) that defines the good for which all things aim. Specifically, this relates to sexual morality. There is no "proper end" of sex. There are only desires that tend to thwart other desires and desires that do not.<br />Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73282620846915823642018-12-18T19:48:26.928-07:002018-12-18T19:48:26.928-07:00Hello! I am just curious, what are your views on N...Hello! I am just curious, what are your views on Natural Law Ethics? Those espoused by Thomists and Catholic Philosophers? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13778366949124292632018-12-16T19:36:24.716-07:002018-12-16T19:36:24.716-07:00I am afraid that the stoics got some things wrong ...I am afraid that the stoics got some things wrong about the nature of desires.<br /><br />Now, technically, there is more than one way of understanding stoicism. One is that it is a philosophy for avoiding pain and anguish. Pain and anguish are things people have reasons to avoid. To do this, you get rid of or weaken desires that cannot be fulfilled. If you have a desire that P and there is no way to realize P then one option to prevent anguish is to try to weaken those particular desires that P. This is a sensible Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14083013531390576882018-12-15T14:21:26.932-07:002018-12-15T14:21:26.932-07:00But the stoics said it was proper to let go of the...But the stoics said it was proper to let go of the desire; in many cases this is superior to satiating the desire, and should always be considered as an alternative. So to a Stoic, this is not a real choice.FredThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08382242668090490676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-91898099428284329322018-11-11T06:02:52.838-07:002018-11-11T06:02:52.838-07:00The Creation
https://youtu.be/3Atlw8XOtMI
one sci...The Creation<br />https://youtu.be/3Atlw8XOtMI<br /><br />one scientist created a software to create many robots from some material in planet Mars by a series of chemical reactions. The software also recreate some body parts if it is destroyed to some extent.<br /><br />Each one with unique identity. Each one will have separate memory.<br /><br />Some robots with artificial intelligence and free will to decide how to live there.<br /><br />The creator choose some leaders from them at different times and to different locations. And kept sending instructions to the leaders to instruct him and all others.<br /><br />The creator informed them you are created for a purpose. I gave you many facilities here, choosen you as my best creation, your present location is just temporary. I am tracking you completly.<br /><br />After your body is destroyed, I will take back your software with all the memory and identity of each of you. And will create you again with the same identity and memory in another planet.<br /><br />The leaders told others about the message they received from the creator.<br /><br />1. Some obeyed the leader because they find the leader never lied to them.<br /><br />2. Some others used their own "logic" and just declared that there is no creator, we all are created by evolution. (without any proof)<br /><br />3. Some say creator is within our body. We all and the creator is one. (without any proof)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-37553302522775278682018-11-02T10:34:49.661-06:002018-11-02T10:34:49.661-06:00"Let us assume that there is a God, and that ..."Let us assume that there is a God, and that God has a set of beliefs and desires. "<br /><br />Why being atheist means being anti- Christian? What is an atheist?<br /><br />getting to the assumption- it starts from a false premise from multiple perspectives. How can there be a god that has beliefs and desires? that is a human being not a god!<br />why make this simplistic assumption firstly, and secondly start from the beginning by looking deeper into things- who is that who makes the assumption/why try to define something external before knowing where the desire to make assumptions comes from?!Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098205640361255053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-31471419308335202212018-10-29T07:25:33.881-06:002018-10-29T07:25:33.881-06:00I am afraid that I am confused by your comment.
I...I am afraid that I am confused by your comment.<br /><br />If an innocent person is in reasonable fear for her life, it really does not matter whether the cause is a person or nature itself. It does matter if the threat itself is justified (e.g., chasing down a criminal), but the vast majority of refugees do not fall in this category.<br /><br />A person with good desires and lacking bad desires would want to help.<br /><br />As for overpopulation . . . that is a different problem that suggests different solutions. Indeed, the best solution to the overpopulation problem found so far is to increase the economic status of women - to give them options other than having children. This has had significant effects in actually reversing population growth in developed countries. Current evidence suggests that the human population will peak at about 9 to 10 billion and then begin a slow global decline, so long as the rights of women are respected.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68629742017527337802018-10-28T07:41:50.909-06:002018-10-28T07:41:50.909-06:00What about these economic/political refugees?
Th...What about these economic/political refugees? <br /><br />These are man made problems. Does that change our understanding/attitude toward the refugees?<br /><br />And yet we also know that the world is overpopulated, based on Co2 levels. So what are the choices? <br />Do nothing? <br />Self harm by bring more people into a less overpopulated area? <br />Ignore the problem until it actually impacts us substantially? FredThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08382242668090490676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1550760788365953292018-10-22T01:41:06.265-06:002018-10-22T01:41:06.265-06:00Hi Argen,
what stand with you agree more with on ...Hi Argen,<br /><br />what stand with you agree more with on this topic? Objective or Subjective?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-36641732299389753512018-10-22T01:38:01.494-06:002018-10-22T01:38:01.494-06:00What position do you stand on the this topic? What position do you stand on the this topic? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-72615893738517263052018-10-18T04:09:43.205-06:002018-10-18T04:09:43.205-06:00Hello, Alonzo. I've recently discovered your w...Hello, Alonzo. I've recently discovered your writings on Desirism and am eating and drinking them up. Thank you for the nourishment.<br /><br />I'm curious, in relation to this balanced right/left system you propose, how would the health care system (and its current problem with rising costs) be handled? And regulations that serve to protect the public (i.e. environmental, workplace safety, campaign finance, and banking & investment just to name a few)—how would those be handled in this balanced system?<br /><br />—BrendanMiggsEyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12187174822788018840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71781353742649785752018-10-15T03:35:34.466-06:002018-10-15T03:35:34.466-06:00I like your proposal, but don't regulations pe...I like your proposal, but don't regulations perform two valuable services?:<br /><br />1. They protect those not directly party to any given transaction but are, nonetheless, affected by it. For example, the producer of a good may employ slave labor. Buying that good encourages slavery and harms the enslaved. Or the production of the good may release an inordinate amount of green house gasses. Buying the good promotes global warming, which affects all of us.<br /><br />2. They protect purchasers against their own ignorance. For example, even a diligent consumer may not know that a product is unsafe. Or that it is ineffective (which has minor consequences for some products but dire ones for things like medicines). An advocate of free markets might say that the market will punish companies that sell dangerous products, forcing them to lose sales/profits or even going out of business. Perhaps (but perhaps not), but even so, this only happens after damage has been inflicted.<br /><br />Surely there is some role for regulation in your model, yes?<br /><br /><br />Thaynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-22929062865024248812018-08-27T19:31:47.435-06:002018-08-27T19:31:47.435-06:00Hi,
I agree with your comments on the idea that d...Hi, <br />I agree with your comments on the idea that desires are beliefs (it is also false on its face, for "I desire to X, but is it good to X?" seems a perfectly intelligible thing to wonder). And I agree that the fundamental question here is "what is a normative reason?"<br /><br />I wonder, however, whether the answer to that question isn't going to challenge the credibility of atheism? It has for me. That is, when I have reflected on what the answer to that question might be I have found myself unable to avoid concluding that normative reasons require a god, at least of a sort. <br /><br />For instance, a normative reason is surely a 'favouring' relation - that is, to judge that one has reason to do or believe something is to judge that one is 'favoured' doing or believing it. That, I take it, is what the 'normativity' of normative reason amounts to. I would suggest this is actually a conceptual truth. <br /><br />Favourings require favourers. It is true that philosophers - many of them - talk of facts favouring things, or 'considerations in the world' favouring things. <br /> But it's a kind of madness. I don't think they realize what they're saying. 'Facts' can't favour anything any more than they can hate things or bear grudges. Likewise for 'considerations in the world'. Minds - and minds alone - favour things. So, favourings require minds to bear them. And thus the favouring relations constitutive of normative reasons must be being borne by a mind. <br /><br />I am a mind. But when I judge that I have reason to do or believe something I am not judging that I favour myself doing or believing it. For even when I am quite sure about what I favour myself doing or believing, I can wonder whether I really have reason to do or believe those things. <br /><br />So, the favourings constitutive of normative reasons seem to have an external bearer (something sometimes expressed, a little misleadingly, as the objectivity of the normative). That is, the mind who is bearing the favourings constitutive of normative reasons does not seem to be any of our minds. For the point about externality or objectivity could be made by any of us. <br /><br />The conclusion, then, is that normative reasons are favourings of doing and believing things that are being borne by a single, external mind. Such a mind qualifies as a god. And as normative reasons exist beyond all reasonable doubt, it seems we must conclude that the god - Reason - exists as well, and thus that atheism is false. <br /><br />Anyway, interested to hear your thoughts on this simple argument. <br /> <br /><br />gkhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11743879639106802515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74854381671587702422018-08-05T14:29:39.323-06:002018-08-05T14:29:39.323-06:00You are going to have to explain what you mean by ...You are going to have to explain what you mean by "subjective."<br /><br />I have written in a few places (see, for example, <a href="https://desirism.com/morality-from-the-ground-up" rel="nofollow">Morality from the Ground Up</a> part XIV) we have trouble talking about these things without creating a lot of confusion because we have no clear definitions.<br /><br />I once engaged in two online debates at the same time. In one I defended the subjectivity of morality, and in the other I argued against it. Yet, I defended the same position in both debates. The difference is that each used a different definition of subjectivity.<br /><br />In the debate where I defended subjectivity, I defended the position that all value depends on desire and no value exists independent of desire.<br /><br />In the debate where I argued against subjectivity I argued against the position that value depends on the desires or beliefs of the person making the evaluation. They do not. Nor do they depend on the mutual agreement of individuals - any more than the age of the earth depends on people coming to a mutual agreement. Morality is something that everybody can agree on, and yet everybody is wrong. However, what they are agreeing or disagreeing about is still dependent on the fact that desires exist.<br /><br />Confusing?<br /><br />Like I said, the problem is that we do not have a clear set of definitions. We use the same terms to mean radically different things, and people slip from one definition to another without noticing.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27465388403128802542018-08-05T09:26:54.815-06:002018-08-05T09:26:54.815-06:00Nice post. But morals and values are mostly subjec...Nice post. But morals and values are mostly subjective; therefore all that follows are also subjective. There is a bit of logic to the first layer of morals and values, from basic premises, but after that it is all subjective, and settled by agreement within a culture. Mother Teresa sold babies. What does it matter? In the end we all just die anyway. Sorry that I am such an ass. FredThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08382242668090490676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-6777636070120747102018-08-05T08:29:39.508-06:002018-08-05T08:29:39.508-06:00The version of centrism being attacked is a straw-...The version of centrism being attacked is a straw-man position that nobody that I know of actually holds.<br /><br />King (and Aristotle) defend a type of centrism, but it is not the type of centrism that the argument against centrism attacks.<br /><br />I have come to recognize in writing this essay that this is an area where "centrism" has come to have a wide variety of meanings. I incorrectly assumed that my encounters with the term in current political discussion represented a cultural norm. This has caused some confusion. I regret that and recognize a need to be more specific in discussing this issue in the future.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.com