Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 13, 2018 12:01:21 GMT
That may or may not be the case, but this is not at all the same as your claim - to which the objection remains - that "the subject of modern religious activities ... might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics" where the supposed necessity of 'lessons from nature' is fallacious. Don't make me repeat this again.
Geography can inform ethics. That seems to have escaped your attention for the moment. I will try to explain why.
OK, then: I'm listening... (although it takes a while for you to get to it..)
Most of this has already been covered by me for years .. The reason many debates online about the existence of god are pointless and unending is that the two (or more) sides have failed to agree on the definition of a god. The existence of one depends entirely on what you mean by one. If you mean an entity that grants a million dollars to anyone who asks, then that god probably does not exist. If you mean a god who symbolizes some set of higher ideals, then that god probably does exist. Until both sides agree to one and the same definition of a god, the debate over its existence can never resolve anything.
It does not take a mastermind to discover that the idea of 'god' varies from person to person and from culture to culture. However, most people take a fairly predictable and conventional view of what they mean as surveys have shown. EG Stateside is the conventional God of the Bible.
www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/april/we-believe-in-god-what-americans-mean-pew-survey.html
Just as you have been told before. However, as you have also been told before, conventional or traditional ideas of god fall away the better educated a person is and especially among physical scientists. Atheists commonly only concern themselves with the deliberate supernatural God, since more nebulous notions of a cause which is random and a 'god' which can be anything are less controversial.
The Britannica article on the "naturalistic fallacy" is about one definition of "good." It is saying that there is no "true" definition of good.The "naturalistic fallacy" is saying there is no such definition of the word "good," but I have told you there is no such definition of any word.
In which case your earlier quoted words, concerning the supposed "complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics." fail, together with any purported system of ethics because, well, as you cannot define anything of which you speak from the outset how can be sure of what is necessary?
does not mean that we must proceed with no definition at all or one based on your use or one based on my use. We may mutually and arbitrarily decide to define "good" anyway we want for the purpose of assessing whether plan XYZ is "good." Our choice may be informed by nature. It may be informed by geography. There is no "fallacy" in a definition that is mutually agreed upon.
Unfortunately the use of nature, by way of creating ethics is not ever "mutually agreed on" at all - which is exactly why it is a fallacy. As Britannica says, the thinker G.E. Moore presented in Principia Ethica a standard argument against the naturalistic fallacy, with the aim of proving that “good” is the name of a simple, unanalyzable quality, incapable of being defined in terms of some natural quality of the world. In short you are being disingenuous; if 'natural good' (as well as all other words) cannot be defined in the first place then, ultimately, the only "mutual agreement" possible is in agreeing with this supposed fact. So not only is there is nothing in nature "required" to build ethics, but not even anything everyone agrees on, not least since you can't have it both ways! See how it works?
Got all that?
I have, yes; but you still need to think it through some more, I guess...
The "naturalistic fallacy" does not permit the automatic definition of "good" by some natural phenomena, however notice that it does not provide any other definition.
Er, that's exactly why referring to nature as a standard for 'good' is a fallacy, is it not?
That is a big problem. We need some definition of "good" or some definition of "ethical" or some definition of something before we can begin developing a system. This definition may be informed by nature and probably should be.
A big problem indeed since earlier you have assured us that "there is no such definition of any word" your hopes immediately above notwithstanding (so which are neither here nor there.) Have you thought this through?
Gender roles in the past and still today are informed by the differences in the nature of men and women. Still today men are preferred to fulfill military roles. Women are preferred to assume custody of children. Technology has enabled people to escape these roles somewhat, but not entirely. The "Equal Rights Amendment" intended to make men and women "equal" in all respects failed. It will always fail because the courts are not capable of making the military half men and half women. The courts are not capable of awarding custody of children half the time to the father and half the time to the mother. Nature defies it. You must recognize nature. You must obey. It is ethical and it is logical. There is no fallacy.
This is rather one of your regular non-sequiturs, and you appear something of a social dinosaur, since it would only be the most social conservative commentators who would seek to define gender roles in society based on what is "natural" and would fall under our favourite fallacy in doing so. I am not sure what you mean by "nature defies it" when it comes to child custody either; it is changes in society: economic, legal and cultural, and not 'nature' which has led to the new structures of family life in the west recently. But I think you really know all this. But I can well imagine you being the sort of commentator to tut at stay-at-home dads, or women who want to enter previously male-only professions, or bewail the decline of "the weaker sex", so nothing surprises me with all this. With this last paragraph of yours I think I can see why you need to play down the Naturalistic Fallacy so vigorously. For you often need it as one rhetorical prop in the arguments against feminism, wider equality and the modern society.
Geography informs the laws of the many states in the United States of America. Indeed what is "right" or "wrong" in one state can be different in another state with a different landscape. It is totally ethical and totally logical.
It's logical that ethics are decided by geography (rather than say, equality of treatment for all wherever they live) so that, for instance abortion is legal in one state and not next door? How's that then?
Because you never learned anything I taught you and probably never will, you took the position that nature cannot inform ethical systems, that it would be a "naturalistic fallacy" to attempt that. Yours is the totally ridiculous, illogical position.
However you wriggle my friend, the fact is that 'good' is just not a natural property - especially so when you agree that the word cannot be defined in the first place! It remains fallacious to explain that which is 'good' reductively in this way. But go on...