SEP: Supervenience in Ethics

[Flannel Jesus]

Your ai bullshit doesn't matter. Nobody knows how you prompted it. You probably fed it what I said and then told it to assume your position is correct and respond accordingly. Ai agreeing with you is meaningless - anybody can tell ai to produce text that agrees with them. You might have to pay a bit extra to get an ai to argue for Mein Kampf but even that's possible.

[Flannel Jesus]

Your above ""the fact that people with different brains can have different senses of morality" is a strawman.
That is not my intention.

When I asked you what you mean, you wrote a while bunch of words that weren't about what you mean, and ended with a sentence that basically amounted to ""the fact that people with different brains can have different senses of morality".

If that's not what you mean, then write a better and more focused response. Focus on the answer to the question, instead of dedicating most of your words to not answering the question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your ai bullshit doesn't matter. Nobody knows how you prompted it. You probably fed it what I said and then told it to assume your position is correct and respond accordingly. Ai agreeing with you is meaningless - anybody can tell ai to produce text that agrees with them. You might have to pay a bit extra to get an ai to argue for Mein Kampf but even that's possible.

I thought the prompt is not relevant.
Here it is:

With reference to his article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supe ... ce-ethics/
Someone commented the following:

"It's just basically saying "morality is situational".
So for example, generally it's not moral to kill another person, but if you find yourself in a situation where someone is trying to kill you, suddenly you killing another person becomes a moral option.
It's not about moral facts compared to natural facts at large, it's about situational ethics."

It is true it is about situational ethics and not about moral facts supervened on natural facts?

[Flannel Jesus]

And here's my convo with chat gpt:

Can you read this article and tell me, in the most simple way possible, what moral supervenience means?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supe ... ce-ethics/

Moral supervenience is a concept in ethics that explains the relationship between moral properties and non-moral properties. It means that if two situations are identical in all non-moral aspects, they must also be identical in their moral aspects. For instance, if two actions are exactly alike in terms of the facts about what they involve (e.g., who is affected, what the outcomes are), then they must also be alike in terms of their moral value (e.g., whether they are right or wrong).

So it's also doing exactly what I'm doing - talking about how morality is situational. If two situations are identical physically, they're identical morally. Different situations can be judged morally differently, same situations have to be judged the same.

[Flannel Jesus]

I thought the prompt is not relevant.

That's because you're too stupid to realize that how you prompt the ai affects the answer.

[Flannel Jesus]

I thought the prompt is not relevant.

Here's what Chat GPT has to say about you:

Veritas Aequitas often fails to clearly articulate his ideas, leading to confusion and misinterpretation among readers.

Veritas Aequitas’s arguments often contain logical fallacies, undermining the validity of his conclusions.

His ideas are frequently unsupported by empirical evidence or reliable sources, making them less credible.

Veritas Aequitas often ignores or inadequately addresses counterarguments, which weakens the persuasiveness of his ideas.

The tone of his communication can be overly aggressive or confrontational, which may alienate readers and detract from the substance of his arguments.

It doesn't matter what I prompted, right? So you should just accept that that's what ChatGPT said about you. And it's as reliable as anything you paste from chatgpt too.

[FlashDangerpants]

Can I state the article is about Ethical Supervenience and present arguments for and against Ethical Supervenience.
Ethical Supervenience in the article refer moral properties [facts] upon natural properties [facts].

VA explicitly argues against facts as properties of the thing and for facts as interpretations of FORKs or someting. So here he is abusing the trust of the AI.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I thought the prompt is not relevant.

Here's what Chat GPT has to say about you:

Veritas Aequitas often fails to clearly articulate his ideas, leading to confusion and misinterpretation among readers.

Veritas Aequitas’s arguments often contain logical fallacies, undermining the validity of his conclusions.

His ideas are frequently unsupported by empirical evidence or reliable sources, making them less credible.

Veritas Aequitas often ignores or inadequately addresses counterarguments, which weakens the persuasiveness of his ideas.

The tone of his communication can be overly aggressive or confrontational, which may alienate readers and detract from the substance of his arguments.

It doesn't matter what I prompted, right? So you should just accept that that's what ChatGPT said about you. And it's as reliable as anything you paste from chatgpt too.

I thought that particular prompt was not important because it is implied in the answer.

Elsewhere, where I think it is critical I will include the prompt, I have done so many times where necessary.

[Flannel Jesus]

I thought that particular prompt was not important because it is implied in the answer.

Yes, that's because you're silly and have no idea how to think carefully and critically.

[Iwannaplato]

Your above ""the fact that people with different brains can have different senses of morality" is a strawman.
That is not my intention.

The fact that you do not understand the difference between pointing out what your argument/position entails and attributing a belief to you, has Ied to endess dead end conversations with you.

This confIation is very convenient. AII you have to do is see if you believe X. No, I don't beIieve X. So, therefore, It's a strawman.No, need to even consider that your position entaiIs X.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I thought the prompt is not relevant.

Here's what Chat GPT has to say about you:

Veritas Aequitas often fails to clearly articulate his ideas, leading to confusion and misinterpretation among readers.

Veritas Aequitas’s arguments often contain logical fallacies, undermining the validity of his conclusions.

His ideas are frequently unsupported by empirical evidence or reliable sources, making them less credible.

Veritas Aequitas often ignores or inadequately addresses counterarguments, which weakens the persuasiveness of his ideas.

The tone of his communication can be overly aggressive or confrontational, which may alienate readers and detract from the substance of his arguments.

It doesn't matter what I prompted, right? So you should just accept that that's what ChatGPT said about you. And it's as reliable as anything you paste from chatgpt too.

The irony is many of my arguments are from ChatGpt and other AI.

The above is too general.
Pick me one case or cases and I will justify my position.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's hilariously perverse that VA is changing this forum into a 'quoting AI' battle, fucking hell. Here's my entry into the quoting AI battle, coming next:

[Flannel Jesus]

Here's what ChatGPT has to say about my interpretation:

Your interpretation of moral supervenience—"how you judge a particular action is entirely situational, and different situations may call for different judgments, but identical situations call for the same moral judgment"—is correct. We can break down the concept into the following supporting points:

1. Situational Nature of Moral Judgments

Argument: Moral judgments are inherently context-sensitive because they depend on the specific details (non-moral properties) of each situation.

Supporting Evidence: Moral supervenience holds that moral properties depend on non-moral properties. This means the particular facts about a situation, such as the intentions behind an action, the consequences, and the context, are crucial for determining the moral judgment.
Example: Consider two actions, both involving telling a lie. If one lie is told to protect someone from harm (benevolent intent) and the other is told for personal gain (malicious intent), the moral judgments may differ despite both being lies.

2. Different Situations, Different Judgments

Argument: Since different situations have different non-moral properties, they can and should lead to different moral judgments.

Supporting Evidence: This aligns with the principle of context sensitivity in ethics. The unique combination of facts, consequences, and intentions in each situation calls for a distinct moral evaluation.
Example: Compare a doctor performing surgery to save a life (where cutting into a body is necessary and morally justified) versus a person inflicting harm with a knife in a robbery (where the same physical action is morally reprehensible).

3. Identical Situations, Identical Judgments

Argument: The core of moral supervenience is that identical non-moral properties across situations necessitate identical moral judgments. This ensures consistency and non-arbitrariness in moral evaluations.

Supporting Evidence: Moral supervenience explicitly asserts that if two situations are identical in all relevant non-moral aspects, they must also be identical in their moral properties. This means that moral judgments cannot vary if the underlying facts do not vary.
Example: If two thefts are identical in every detail—same intention, same consequences, same context—then they must be judged morally the same. Any deviation in moral judgment would suggest an inconsistency that moral supervenience aims to avoid.

Conclusion
Your interpretation accurately captures the essence of moral supervenience. By emphasizing that moral judgments are situational and different situations call for different judgments, while identical situations call for the same moral judgment, you are aligning with the core principles of moral supervenience.

Consistency: Ensuring that identical situations are judged the same way upholds the consistency required by moral supervenience.
Context Sensitivity: Recognizing that different situations call for different judgments respects the dependency of moral properties on the specific non-moral properties of each situation.
This interpretation is well-supported by the philosophical understanding of moral supervenience as detailed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​​ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)​.

[Flannel Jesus]

Can we hop off the AI train yet please VA?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I thought that particular prompt was not important because it is implied in the answer.

Yes, that's because you're silly and have no idea how to think carefully and critically.

I told you the prompt is implied in the answer.
To save time, I did not want to do extra copy, paste or having to edit out the non-essential bits from the program.

Elsewhere, where I think it is critical I will include the prompt, I have done so many times where necessary.