Doing what is right in an out of control world

[askandanswer]

Moroni 9:14 - 19

14  Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15  For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16  For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17  But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
18  And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
19  Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
 

[2ndRateMind]

Quote

 

1) You believe that man cannot possibly know objective truth as to what is moral.

2) You believe that a man did, indeed, know objective truth about what is moral - Jesus. Or he saved us without knowing objective truth about morality. Or he was just a moral philosopher who improved us without knowing what objective truth in morality was. 

3) You believe we get better morally

4) You have no way of measuring what 'better' means, nor do you have any concept of how we could possibly know that it was better.

5) You believe even a school child knows what 'better' means,.

6) You do not know what 'better' means in the context you were using it in - That is, in the context of improved morality and understanding.

7) You have no reason to believe we get better morally as a species due to the aforementioned lack of any possible measuring stick for what better means, but you like to think of yourself as an optimist and optimists believe things are better.

😎  You hate answering questions...

...Do you want to know the truth more than you want to argue?

 

 

I do not actually know, @FunkyTown, whether Jesus knew 'objective truth about morality'. The Gospels are not explicit on this matter. But certainly, by His words and deeds, He seemed to assume that He did.

And on the contrary, I have suggested one plausible metric to assess moral progress or regress; the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). It is pretty much self evident that the more QALYs experienced per head of population, the better and longer lives are becoming. So, for example, if we decided to eradicate absolute poverty, that would increase quality and quantity of lives considerably. Similarly if peace broke out all over the world, and conflicts ended.

Also, I have already discussed my criteria for changing my world-view, and that is that the alternative should be more comprehensive, cogent, coherent and consistent than my current thinking.

And I see no reason why knowing the truth and arguing for it should be mutually inconsistent. One can learn a lot while arguing, about one's own position, it's strengths and weaknesses, and that of the other protagonist, and it's strengths and weaknesses.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited June 23, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

26 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

 

I do not actually know, @FunkyTown, whether Jesus knew 'objective truth about morality'. The Gospels are not explicit on this matter. But certainly, by His words and deeds, He seemed to assume that He did.

And on the contrary, I have suggested one plausible metric to assess moral progress or regress; the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). It is pretty much self evident that the more QALYs experienced per head of population, the better and longer lives are becoming. So, for example, if we decided to eradicate absolute poverty, that would increase quality and quantity of lives considerably. Similarly if peace broke out all over the world, and conflicts ended.

Also, I have already discussed my criteria for changing my world-view, and that is that the alternative should be more comprehensive, cogent, coherent and consistent than my current thinking.

And I see no reason why knowing the truth and arguing for it should be mutually inconsistent. One can learn a lot while arguing, about one's own position, it's strengths and weaknesses, and that of the other protagonist, and it's strengths and weaknesses.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

And you prevaricate once again.

 

Would you rather know the truth or have an argument?

[2ndRateMind]

3 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

And you prevaricate once again.

 

Would you rather know the truth or have an argument?

I'm not prevaricating. I find I learn the truth most effectively by discussing with others.

Best wishes, 2RM

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm not prevaricating. I find I learn the truth most effectively by discussing with others.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

You are prevaricating. You still haven't answered the question.

 

Would you rather know the truth or have an argument?

[2ndRateMind]

 

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

 

You are prevaricating. You still haven't answered the question.

 

Would you rather know the truth or have an argument?

I have answered the question. You seem to have failed to understand my answer. I suggest we move on.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

 

I have answered the question. You seem to have failed to understand my answer. I suggest we move on.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You have not answered the question.

 

Would you rather know the truth or have an argument?

 

That's an either/or question. Maybe you didn't understand, which is fair. That's why I am clarifying. Would you rather know the truth or have an argument?

[2ndRateMind]

Uh huh. You have posed it as an either/or question, but I am telling you my preference is for a both/and situation, provided the quality of argument is good.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh. You have posed it as an either/or question, but I am telling you my preference is for a both/and situation, provided the quality of argument is good.

Best wishes, 2RM.

That is impossible, and I will tell  you why.

 

You have a base assumption fallacy: That man cannot possibly know absolute moral truth.

 

And you refuse to answer any questions with any degree of certainty. You choose to prevaricate and slither, and verbally avoid any questions. You refuse to take a stance on literally anything and the base with which you place your assumptions is impossible to determine.

 

To have an argument, you must take a position and be able to justify it. You can not and you do not, because you refuse to answer counter-questions. You not only don't know the truth and admit you know the truth, but you can't have an argument because you refuse to clarify your position. You have lost opportunity to do both and end up doing neither.

 

So I will ask again, only to have you avoid the question again:

Would you rather have an argument or know the truth?

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

You have a base assumption fallacy: That man cannot possibly know absolute moral truth.

Why is that a fallacy? Do you claim to know absolute moral truth? Do you claim to know anyone who does? 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Why is that a fallacy? Do you claim to know absolute moral truth? Do you claim to know anyone who does? 

Best wishes, 2RM.

I certainly do claim to know somebody who does, but I cannot prove anything to you until I understand the basis for your beliefs.

 

And so I ask again, only to have you prevaricate, and slither, and verbally avoid the question:

Would you rather have an argument or know the truth?

[2ndRateMind]

6 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

I certainly do claim to know somebody who does...

I presume you mean Jesus? But He is commonly thought to have been the Son of God amongst Christians, and part of the Godhead Trinity. So, arguably, He does not really count as 'man'.

Do you know any of us ordinary mortals who know 'absolute moral truth'? One example will suffice to defeat my position, if you can justify it.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited June 23, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

I presume you mean Jesus? But He is commonly thought to have been the Son of God amongst Christian, and part of the Godhead Trinity. So, arguably, He does not really count as 'man'.

Do you know any of us ordinary mortals who know 'absolute moral truth'? One example will suffice to defeat my position, if you can justify it.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

And so you prevaricate, and slither, and verbally avoid the question again.

 

Would you rather have an argument or know the truth?

[2ndRateMind]

I guess from that response you do not know any of us ordinary mortals who know 'absolute moral truth'. So, maybe this 'base assumption' is not a 'fallacy', after all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

I guess from that response you do not know any of us ordinary mortals who know 'absolute moral truth'. So, maybe this 'base assumption' is not a 'fallacy', after all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Like a teacher who says he will assess an argument, but refuses to define the metric by which he will judge said argument, you are creating an impossible task.

 

I ask for the ninth time, only to have you prevaricate, and slither, and verbally avoid the question:

Would you rather have an argument or know the truth?

[2ndRateMind]

You had your answer, previously. You won't get another. If you don't like that answer, well, that isn't really my problem.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

You had your answer, previously. You won't get another. If you don't like that answer, well, that isn't really my problem.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You did not answer it. You prevaricated, and slithered, and verbally avoided the question.

 

And so I ask for a tenth time:

 

Would you rather have an argument or know the truth?

[2ndRateMind]

Do you have a problem with open, transparent, debate? Do you not like being asked to justify your thinking? You seem to be clinging on to this foolish question as a way of avoiding discussion, and it is not a very productive strategy. Drop it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

4 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Do you have a problem with open, transparent, debate? Do you not like being asked to justify your thinking? You seem to be clinging on to this foolish question as a way of avoiding discussion, and it is not a very productive strategy. Drop it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

"Transparent" implies a two-way transparency. You ask questions and refuse to provide the metric by which you judge them.

 

You make statements, then backtrack when you realize they don't help your position(Such as when you said 'Even a school child understands what better means' in the context of understanding morality). That is a 'Moving the goalpost' fallacy. You make a sweeping claim that man cannot know moral truth, but refuse to clarify why you believe that. You engage in sophistry as a distraction, refusing to clarify your own positions as those positions can then be dismantled and examined in detail - Detail that you realize will not stand up to scrutiny.

 

You refuse to answer any questions with any degree of certainty on your positions, nor on what metrics you use to judge other positions(Because you know those same metrics would be used on your positions, which you also refuse to clarify).

 

What I am doing is, in teaching terms, called 'Refocusing'. It's when a student is determined to derail. I understand what you're doing and why, even if you don't. That's fine. It doesn''t offend me or bother me. It just means I have to keep refocusing back to the basics of what your question were.

So I ask for an eleventh time:

 

Would you rather have an argument or know the truth?

[2ndRateMind]

On the contrary, I have answered many of your (better) questions completely honestly and utterly transparently. I have laid out for you the philosophical background as to where I am at, and my reasoning behind that. You have, in return, decided not to reciprocate. Instead, you have become boringly fixated on a question I have perfectly adequately responded to, because my answer does not fit within your binary mindset.

You are better than this! You just need to try harder, and put those little grey brain cells to use. 

It is time for you to come clean, and lay out the LDS position on morality, and by what reasoning you think it preferable to any other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 23, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

15 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

On the contrary, I have answered many of your (better) questions completely honestly and utterly transparently. I have laid out for you the philosophical background as to where I am at, and my reasoning behind that. You have, in return, decided not to reciprocate. Instead, you have become boringly fixated on a question I have perfectly adequately responded to, because my answer does not fit within your binary mindset.

You are better than this! You just need to try harder, and put those little grey brain cells to use. 

It is time for you to come clean, and lay out the LDS position on morality, and by what reasoning you think it preferable to any other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And so you prevaricate and slither and verbally avoid the question again.

 

You are using these distractions from the questions for a very easily observed reason: You recognize the weakness inherent in your own position. You can see them. You're a smart guy. That's why you refuse to answer any of my questions with any detail.

These base assumptions you have are so important to your self-image that you can't entertain questions to them, because you see the weakness the moment the right questions come. And it scares you. But that's a good thing - You need to recognize that feeling in order to see real truth, to recognize that cognitive dissonance should not control you.

 

And so I ask again for a 12th time:

 

Would you rather have an argument or know the truth?

[2ndRateMind]

14 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

And so you prevaricate and slither and verbally avoid the question again.

I asked you to present and justify LDS morality. Now who's prevaricating, slithering and avoiding?

Quote

You recognize the weakness inherent in your own position.

Actually, I don't. I am awaiting your criticism of the substance of what I have said, which, so far, you have not really engaged with.

Let me give you a clue. You could start your next post as follows: 'Utiltarianism is unsatisfactory because...' And then you could have a next paragraph starting: 'LDS teaching on morality is better than utilitarianism because...'

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 23, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

On 6/20/2018 at 10:51 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

Quote

Let's start with the very basics, then:

 

How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented? Will it be logic? A 'feeling' of truth? Some third thing?[/quote]

Exactly that. How will we know? If we do not know how we are to know right from wrong, my point is demonstrated.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

All right. Let's start from the very beginning of the thread and go through your answers to all of my (Very few, since I had to reframe so many questions and didn't get answers) questions.

 

The very first question I asked was to establish some baseline for how you would know the truth if it was presented to you - Some basic, fundamental way we could communicate in a way you could accept and understand.

 

Does the word 'Exactly' answer my question? Or would you say you prevaricated and avoided the question there?

 

Would you say you adequately provided an answer that I could use to communicate in any way? Does 'exactly' allow me some fundamental insight in to how you approach and discover truth?

On 6/20/2018 at 10:51 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

 

Edited June 23, 2018 by FunkyTown

[2ndRateMind]

28 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

The very first question I asked was to establish some baseline for how you would know the truth if it was presented to you - Some basic, fundamental way we could communicate in a way you could accept and understand...

...Would you say you adequately provided an answer that I could use to communicate in any way? Does 'exactly' allow me some fundamental insight in to how you approach and discover truth?

It's not that difficult. We speak a common language. There are rules of logic.

I was the first to put that question to the forum, though I phrased it differently: 'How do we know we know what is moral?' You merely asked it back, answering my question with the same question, which, as I am sure you will appreciate, is not exactly enlightening. So I asked it back of you. I am genuinely more interested in learning what the LDS think, and why they think it, than I am in what I think, which I already know, anyway.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 23, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

It's not that difficult. We speak a common language. There are rules of logic.

I was the first to put that question to the forum, though I phrased it differently 'How do we know we know what is moral?' You merely asked it back, answering my question with the same question, which, as I am sure you will appreciate, is not exactly enlightening. So I asked it back of you. I am genuinely more interested in learning what the LDS think, and why they think it, than I am in what I think, which I already know, anyway.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You have heard what the LDS think. We believe that, through the light of the Holy Ghost, moral truths can be known beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

But that answer is irrelevant to you because you have no framework by which that has any relevance.

 

And it was -not- the same question at all - You asked how we can know moral truth I asked how you could know that you knew the way to find moral truth. That is a very different question.

 

"How do we know what this book says?" is a similar question. "How do we know what reading is?" is closer to what I asked.

 

And it took nearly 70 posts for you to finally admit that you didn't know how you could know that you had found truth. 70 posts. Would you say that taking 70 posts to get an answer to a single question is appropriate, or that it constitutes trying to answer?