The below is content from: http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/
Original content is in black, annotations and insights by myself are in red.
Rationalist Morals: The Deets
Secondary Titles that Can be Reused for Anything: The Deets OR
Lazy Yet Trying to Be Hip and/or Cool Bloggers: The Deets
Since the beginning of time, essays have started with this phrase.The beginning of time does not coincide with the writing of essays. This phrase however does coincide with douchebag writers thoughout the ages.
This essay will elaborate on the "rationalist morals" introduced in my recent note: "Agnosticism: A basis for Rationalist Morals." This doesn't seem like a phrase that appears in ANY other essay. Your first paragraph was both stupid and erroneous. Suck a bag of dicks.
I have finally found something I like in Adam's blog. Something he didn't create.
(http://justanotherblogonsavingtheworld.blogspot.ca/2013/01/agnosticism-basis-for-rationalist-morals.html)
One of that essay's arguments will serve as the introduction for this essay.Be still my beating heart.
"Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest and purest morals. To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence. They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience. More importantly, they're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."
None of what he said creates a coherent argument, let alone a logical one.
The introduction presents four theses; I'll elaborate each one in turn.
Oh fuck, he's attempting to make the above crap into coherent arguments. This will suck.
1) "Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest morals."
Every belief system has different sources of moral strength. For Christians, it's faith. For Islamists, it's submission. For Jews, it's the word/study.
I find this more than mildly intolerant in its quick summarizations of the three religious groups. and while he may not mean negative connotations on submission in the Islamic faith, by not elaborating he has left the reader to think that. You are a dick. PS. Fear of God is more relevant than word/study in the Jewish faith. Word/study is actually better for the Islamic group that put justice in the hands of religious scholars (though not all groups do)... Dick. However, for Agnostics, the source of moral strength is will. Why "will?" Well, most beliefs and creeds incorporate will into their moral strength. For example, for some denominations of Christianity, will is central because of the importance of having a "free will" to merit theology.
Moral strength has not yet been defined and the extent to how people help/hurt people varies without a mandatory correlation to religious beliefs. I don't avoid murdering you because I'm Christian, Atheist, or Muslim; I do it because I don't want to get sent to jail. Conversely I don't volunteer to help the homeless necessarily for those reasons alone. Maybe a commercial made me feel bad and I wanted to help, or maybe I was homeless or faced financial hardship in my past and want to help people having that same experience.
Moral strength has not yet been defined and the extent to how people help/hurt people varies without a mandatory correlation to religious beliefs. I don't avoid murdering you because I'm Christian, Atheist, or Muslim; I do it because I don't want to get sent to jail. Conversely I don't volunteer to help the homeless necessarily for those reasons alone. Maybe a commercial made me feel bad and I wanted to help, or maybe I was homeless or faced financial hardship in my past and want to help people having that same experience.
Although most beliefs and creeds share will as a component in their moral strength, Agnosticism is the only system of thought that I have encountered where moral strength is almost entirely determined by strength of will.
What about Atheists... Agnosticism acknowledges the possible existence of a God of some sort, atheists flat out deny a God exists. Isn't their existence even more morally driven cause there's not even a chance of God existing in their minds?
Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest morals because of the nature of will. Will is the only ability that we all share that has no substantive limits; the presence and use of will is rational; the use of will, such as Nietzsche's will to power, is intrinsic to the human being; finally, human beings had will long before they had faith, submission, or the word. Will is innate.
I get what you're saying, but why are you saying it. It's just pretentious drivel.
In sum, as something all human beings share from birth with no substantive limits, will presents an opportunity to have stronger morals.
Whatever bitch.
2) "Agnostics have the potential to have the purest morals."
I must state from the outset that when I talk of purity, I'm referring to degree of logic, reasoning, and consistency.
As stated in my previous note on this topic, Agnosticism is founded upon reason. Reason is one of, if not, the best method(s) of knowing available to humanity. Most other beliefs and creeds rely on "weaker" methods of knowing, such as revelation or authority. (obviously the latter two methods are interrelated) These methods of knowing: revelation and authority, share the same problem with theism and atheism --- they are incredible by definition.
Not only are theist/atheist morals sometimes illogical and unreasonable, they also tend to be inconsistent, at least relative to rationalist morals. There are many examples of this - just look at the Bible - *see Bertrand Russel's essay*/go google "inconsistencies in the Bible."
Not only are theist/atheist morals sometimes illogical and unreasonable, they also tend to be inconsistent, at least relative to rationalist morals. There are many examples of this - just look at the Bible - *see Bertrand Russel's essay*/go google "inconsistencies in the Bible."
Dude, as I said above, Atheism. "Most other beliefs and creeds rely on "weaker" methods of knowing, such as revelation or authority." Dude. Their beliefs are based on science. You're a moron.
In addition to their logic, reasoning, and consistency, rationalist morals bear their purity because of their simplicity. They are derived from basic reason based on basic experiences --- there are no complex/farfetched external variables such as faith or submission etc. Rationalist morals are Occam's Razor'ed morals.
In sum, rationalist morals are based on the most rational and simplest methods of knowing, and as such, have the potential to be the purest.I sound like a broken record because all I can say is "HAVE YOU HEARD OF ATHEISM!?!?!"
At least I don't sound like an oblivious douchebag (thats you, just in case you were oblivious to what my blog is trying to tell you).
3) "To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence. They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience."
In sum, rationalist morals are based on the most rational and simplest methods of knowing, and as such, have the potential to be the purest.I sound like a broken record because all I can say is "HAVE YOU HEARD OF ATHEISM!?!?!"
At least I don't sound like an oblivious douchebag (thats you, just in case you were oblivious to what my blog is trying to tell you).
3) "To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence. They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience."
"3)" was essentially covered in the previous paragraph - so I'm going to leave it for now.Thank God... or science... or whatever
***Edit*** Yeah I think I'm actually going to address this.NOOOOOOO! There is no God... or Science
I'd argue that rationalist morals are exclusively empirical. They essentially avoid the metaphysical as much as possible, with the possible exception of human feeling. (The question as to whether or not emotion serves as a metaphysical exception is based on whether or not one thinks emotion rational.)
***Edit*** Yeah I think I'm actually going to address this.NOOOOOOO! There is no God... or Science
I'd argue that rationalist morals are exclusively empirical. They essentially avoid the metaphysical as much as possible, with the possible exception of human feeling. (The question as to whether or not emotion serves as a metaphysical exception is based on whether or not one thinks emotion rational.)
If it is debatable that rationalist morals can be based on human feeling; you are saying you aren't certain that rationalist morals can love. Keep you morals away from me hater.
As a product of empiricism, rational morals gain transferability between peoples as almost all our cognitions are based on empirical evidence. Also, rational morals gain credibility from their positivist roots - which, importantly, include objectivity: the susceptibility to change based on new evidence. This objectivity presents an enormous advantage over the many beliefs and creeds that remain dogmatically static, such as most sects of Islam. A rationalist morality only becomes static (i.e. absolute) when it reaches full development, which would essentially require every experience ever.
Attacking Muslims again? At least they know what they're talking about.
4) "They're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."
Of all my points so far, this is undoubtedly the most important.
That means nothing to me.
Allow me to illustrate. There is, as of yet, only one universal language shared by all peoples, at all times, in all places. I'm speaking of course of mathematics.
My guess was Charades... I feel like my sister would have difficulty communicating via math.
It's no coincidence that mathematics and rationalist morals are almost universally applicable by all peoples. They are both founded upon the same Occam's Razor'ed principles: those of reason, logic, and experience. [Rationalist morals present another universal language, or at least - an excellent contender for a universal language.]
A universal language where you don't say good morning. You give silent, passionate tearful hugs. Offices productivity drops faster than Adam's hopes in this blog would inspire people.
I realize the latter argument could be used for any other language such as English etc., however, there is an important distinction between the language of mathematics and most other languages. Most languages have cultural overtones and values that distort and vary their meaning, however, mathematics/reason/logic are almost completely neutral and impartial. The same goes for rationalist morals in this respect. Culture doesn't/shouldn't get in the way of rationalist morals.
Which will be more effective: "Hey Doug, pass me that stapler please." or "56+27-(84^6) INTEGRATE"
In sum, rationalist morals are almost completely transferable between people(s), because they're founded on shared experiences and cognition.
Morals are transferable, those staplers, not so much...
Well, now that I've described the criteria and skeleton of rationalist morals, I thought I'd end this note by fleshing out one - one of the most basic and universal: "Do on to others as you would have done to you." The Golden Rule: almost every belief and creed shares it, in some form.
The use of belief here referencing a group of people just shows how ambiguously he uses his terms. Is a belief a tenant, a group of people, or an individual thought in your manifesto. The lack of definition is lazy, incoherent and really shows how much of this is you talking out your ass.
Why is the Golden Rule a rationalist moral?
A dramatic question... damn, I feel like I made have made a mistake in crossing you my majestic leader.
The answer lies in the reasoning for the rule: empathy. Empathy, or the presence of empathy, is one of the most fundamental rationalist morals - that of understanding, or the ability to understand, a person's feelings and values, and how they affect them. The Golden Rule is a direct projection of empathy, i.e., don't do things to other people that would make you feel bad if they were done to you. Thus, the rationalist moral in this instance, is not the projected Golden Rule, but empathy. Without empathy, there is no logical reason to follow the Golden Rule.
If I punch my neighbour in the morning, he might punch me back, or call the cops, or react in some other way that harms me. I will not punch him, not because I empathize with him, but because as a completely self interested person, I do not wish to be punched in the face, or get arrested. OR I don't want to talk to this homeless man, I'll give him change so I can get da fuck outta here.
I'll create another note outlining some other key rationalist morals in a while --- I still have to finish researching for that essay I mentioned in the last note.
So all of this is based on an argument in a note that I have not finished researching. But seriously guys, I'm not pulling this out of my ass due to a superiority complex. Not at all.
P.S.
(Here's a hint for finding rationalist morals - they're usually the morals that almost every belief and creed share.)
Hint, this is extremely open ended. It's not insightful, it's just generic bullshit.
Cheers.
As a product of empiricism, rational morals gain transferability between peoples as almost all our cognitions are based on empirical evidence. Also, rational morals gain credibility from their positivist roots - which, importantly, include objectivity: the susceptibility to change based on new evidence. This objectivity presents an enormous advantage over the many beliefs and creeds that remain dogmatically static, such as most sects of Islam. A rationalist morality only becomes static (i.e. absolute) when it reaches full development, which would essentially require every experience ever.
Attacking Muslims again? At least they know what they're talking about.
4) "They're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways."
Of all my points so far, this is undoubtedly the most important.
That means nothing to me.
Allow me to illustrate. There is, as of yet, only one universal language shared by all peoples, at all times, in all places. I'm speaking of course of mathematics.
My guess was Charades... I feel like my sister would have difficulty communicating via math.
It's no coincidence that mathematics and rationalist morals are almost universally applicable by all peoples. They are both founded upon the same Occam's Razor'ed principles: those of reason, logic, and experience. [Rationalist morals present another universal language, or at least - an excellent contender for a universal language.]
A universal language where you don't say good morning. You give silent, passionate tearful hugs. Offices productivity drops faster than Adam's hopes in this blog would inspire people.
I realize the latter argument could be used for any other language such as English etc., however, there is an important distinction between the language of mathematics and most other languages. Most languages have cultural overtones and values that distort and vary their meaning, however, mathematics/reason/logic are almost completely neutral and impartial. The same goes for rationalist morals in this respect. Culture doesn't/shouldn't get in the way of rationalist morals.
Which will be more effective: "Hey Doug, pass me that stapler please." or "56+27-(84^6) INTEGRATE"
In sum, rationalist morals are almost completely transferable between people(s), because they're founded on shared experiences and cognition.
Morals are transferable, those staplers, not so much...
Well, now that I've described the criteria and skeleton of rationalist morals, I thought I'd end this note by fleshing out one - one of the most basic and universal: "Do on to others as you would have done to you." The Golden Rule: almost every belief and creed shares it, in some form.
The use of belief here referencing a group of people just shows how ambiguously he uses his terms. Is a belief a tenant, a group of people, or an individual thought in your manifesto. The lack of definition is lazy, incoherent and really shows how much of this is you talking out your ass.
Why is the Golden Rule a rationalist moral?
A dramatic question... damn, I feel like I made have made a mistake in crossing you my majestic leader.
The answer lies in the reasoning for the rule: empathy. Empathy, or the presence of empathy, is one of the most fundamental rationalist morals - that of understanding, or the ability to understand, a person's feelings and values, and how they affect them. The Golden Rule is a direct projection of empathy, i.e., don't do things to other people that would make you feel bad if they were done to you. Thus, the rationalist moral in this instance, is not the projected Golden Rule, but empathy. Without empathy, there is no logical reason to follow the Golden Rule.
If I punch my neighbour in the morning, he might punch me back, or call the cops, or react in some other way that harms me. I will not punch him, not because I empathize with him, but because as a completely self interested person, I do not wish to be punched in the face, or get arrested. OR I don't want to talk to this homeless man, I'll give him change so I can get da fuck outta here.
I'll create another note outlining some other key rationalist morals in a while --- I still have to finish researching for that essay I mentioned in the last note.
So all of this is based on an argument in a note that I have not finished researching. But seriously guys, I'm not pulling this out of my ass due to a superiority complex. Not at all.
P.S.
(Here's a hint for finding rationalist morals - they're usually the morals that almost every belief and creed share.)
Hint, this is extremely open ended. It's not insightful, it's just generic bullshit.
Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment