tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post1006769501477699132..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Atheist ProselytizingAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10349382334791201332013-07-13T23:58:50.073-06:002013-07-13T23:58:50.073-06:00I am sure you believe in the statement that is hig...I am sure you believe in the statement that is highly unlike that there are in nature pink elephants with round purple spot, wings the size of a hummingbird that can fly at 180 miles per hour. So I claim you belong to the religion of non-believers of such creatures, right. That would probably be the largest religion on the planet according to your understanding of what a religion is. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-50395127947017394712011-05-10T19:43:18.762-06:002011-05-10T19:43:18.762-06:00Well. For starters, "WE" are not a grou...Well. For starters, "WE" are not a group, any more than people with brown eyes are a group. "WE" don't have "positions" on anything. "WE" are people that do not believe in any god, and that's all. If you want to develop your own religions or theological viewpoints, that's super, but you'll have to think up a new name for it. I like anagrams... perhaps C.U.N.T.S could be something to shoot for?Bambinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13071467004625831632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-26823159259697981702008-03-13T21:45:00.000-06:002008-03-13T21:45:00.000-06:00Note that there is an organization which promotes ...Note that there is an organization which promotes science and opposes creationism, but it also argues for the compatibility of religion and evolution--that's the National Center for Science Education.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that it would be far less effective than it is if it were an atheist organization, as opposed to an organization that takes no position on the question of atheism vs. theism.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-51858737719322407242008-03-10T08:52:00.000-06:002008-03-10T08:52:00.000-06:00I am not saying that desire utilitarianism is wron...<I>I am not saying that desire utilitarianism is wrong. </I><BR/><BR/>I can say it. Desire utilitarianism is wrong. We can expect any theory to be ultimately rejected and replaced with better theories as our knowledge and understanding of the universe increases. Just as Einstein's theories replaced Newton, future theories will replace desire utilitarianism. Or, at best, it will require some significant overhauls.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I see desire utilitarianism as postulating that "the most moral act is that which allows the greatest number of desires to be achieved". </I><BR/><BR/>Actually, that is not correct.<BR/><BR/>I distinguish desire utilitarianism from desire-fulfillment act utilitarianism. The postulate you describe above is desire-fulfillment act utilitarianism (the right act is the act that fulfills the most and strongest desires), which I reject. I reject all act-utilitarian theories (the right act is the act that produces the best consequences) because they require that all agents have only one desire - a desire to produce the best consequences. If the agent has any other desire, regardless how small, it will sometimes prevent him from producing the act-utlitarian best act.<BR/><BR/>It is common to think that a moral system must have some fundamental, foundational 'ought' statement that cannot be proved. I reject that view. It is a dualist view that holds that there are two different types of relationships - 'is' relationships and 'ought' relationships. This type of dualism is as problematic as any type of metaphysical dualism. It raises very serious questions about, 'What is this second type of entity and how, if it is not a part of the material universe, does it interact with that universe to make real-world changes'?<BR/><BR/>So, I hold that 'is' relationships are the only relationships that exist. 'Ought' relationships are either a subset of 'is' relationships, or they do not exist. There is no fundamental unprovable 'ought' statement any more than there are fundamental, unprovable 'is' statements.<BR/><BR/>In this case, all value exists in the form of relationships between states of affairs and desires (an 'is' relationship), where desires are the only reasons for action that exist (another 'is' statement). Since agents can only act to fulfill the more and stronger of their desires given their beliefs, the right act cannot be the act that fulfills the most desires generally. The right act can only be an act that fulfills the more and stronger of the agent's desires, given his beliefs.<BR/><BR/>However, because desires are maleable, we are capable of (and we have reason to cause) people to have desires that tend to fulfill other desires. By molding people's desires, we can make it the case that a person who acts so as to fulfill the more and stronger of his own desires, also fulfills the more and stronger of the desires of others as an intended or unintended consequence.<BR/><BR/>This 'promoting desires that tend to fulfill other desires' and 'inhibiting desires that tend to thwart other desires' is what morality is about.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1371618052612321182008-03-10T07:28:00.000-06:002008-03-10T07:28:00.000-06:00I am not saying that desire utilitarianism is wron...I am not saying that desire utilitarianism is wrong. I agree that is is an interesting aproach to ethical thinking, and I am not offering any better approaches, nor am I yet convinced it is the best. All I am saying is that it rests on certain unproven premises, as does any system in a universe that is not fully understood. Even if it, like other ways of thinking, can be shown to have flaws, it may still turn out like democracy, to be the best system available. Godel theorem in mathematics anyways argues that the completely consistent system is sure to be incomplete.<BR/><BR/>You asked for the credo, and I will do my best to provide one.<BR/><BR/>I see desire utilitarianism as postulating that "the most moral act is that which allows the greatest number of desires to be achieved". <BR/><BR/>Like Euclid's fifth postulate, (parallel lines never meet) this may be a reasonable assumption, but is is an assumption nonetheless. And if you stop believing in the assumption, then you are open to all the different non-Euclidian geometries. Even natural geometry (which does not use the fifth postulate, still rests on the 4 other unproven assumptions Euclid's Postulates.<BR/> <BR/>A good and very short post on the postulates.<BR/>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html<BR/> <BR/>So I see many theistic religions as self-consistant moral philosophies, as is desire utilitarianism. That does not make them equivalent. Only that neither is wholly without reason, or wholly without belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-62450943718777042362008-03-08T18:10:00.000-07:002008-03-08T18:10:00.000-07:00paulvPerhaps you could idenfity this unproven 'cre...<B>paulv</B><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could idenfity this unproven 'credo that [desire utilitarianism] rests on' for me. Then we can see if it is, in fact, unproven. Or, perhaps, we can understand where you might have misinterpreted some part of the theory.<BR/><BR/>Anybody can utter a statement, "You system is wrong." The phrase is so easy that it is worthless.<BR/><BR/>The question is whether you can identify an error.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-75747761361855891112008-03-08T17:14:00.000-07:002008-03-08T17:14:00.000-07:00Desire fullfillment is like objectivism, and or th...Desire fullfillment is like objectivism, and or the pursuit of happiness, also a belief system. You may be right that it is more sensible, or self-consistant or rational. But the credo it rests upon, as do all systems is not proven. Atheist prostletyzing should at least have the courage to admit, that it is not about removing all belief, but about changing what it is people believe in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-60105731074667236902008-03-07T19:49:00.000-07:002008-03-07T19:49:00.000-07:00anticantYes, they have a foothold. However, I do n...<B>anticant</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, they have a foothold. However, I do not see much evidence that they have gone beyond a foothold, and I think that the foothold is very tenuous.<BR/><BR/>I am only basing this on anecdotal evidence that I do not encounter many people writing from that perspective, at least not in my circles, so it could be a mistaken impression.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-46994393115632948482008-03-07T19:42:00.000-07:002008-03-07T19:42:00.000-07:00You rightly criticise post-modernism and cultural ...You rightly criticise post-modernism and cultural relativism - to which I would add deconstructionism - but are you really saying that these intellectual dead-ends have not established a foothold in American academia as well as in Europe? <BR/><BR/>Judging from the incomprehensible jargon which pours out from some US universities, I find this hard to believe.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35544819654850995722008-03-06T17:13:00.000-07:002008-03-06T17:13:00.000-07:00One thing that religious groups get right is chari...One thing that religious groups get right is charity. For example, various churches in my area have food banks, which have helped my family personally in the past during rough times. Even as an atheist leaning agnostic, I would encourage people to donate to churches who have similar programs. Rather than shop at Hot Topic and piss people off by the shield of the Internet, perhaps non-believers could help their image by doing similar, close to home things that churches do. A bit more realistic, with an immediate positive effect, than the "fight aids" rhetoric that everyone is tired of hearing and throwing money at. I know plenty of hungry people, and nobody with aids. If I had the resources, I think a food bank of sorts would be a good start.<BR/><BR/>Another idea, which might even be easier to get off the drawing board, is care packages for the troops. When I was deployed in Uzbekistan and Iraq, I received a few care packages from various groups. Every one of them had Christian proselytizing in them, in various forms such as pamphlets, prayer cards, and anecdotes. I wrote back to one, mentioning that the military allows all religions, and that they have other things to worry about than having their faith potentially attacked. Let's just say they took me off their list, and the rest of the company continued receiving packages on a regular basis. I felt it was wrong for them to assume as such, and even more so to only support troops with their religious belief.<BR/><BR/>A food box or care package from a non-believer would contain a message that could apply to anyone, no matter what religion they are. General, nice, positive stuff that is universal. The only indication that it came from a group of particular faith or lack thereof would be the group's name and/or website, should they choose to learn more. That would be my way of improving the image of non-believers without shoving belief down their throats, questioning theirs, or discriminating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com