Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:10 am**

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:34 am There is no way humans can ever determine the true shape of the Earth, it is not round, merely roughly spherical but not exactly. Whatever the truth of the shape of the Earth, it is still dependent of the human conditions. However we can arrive at a best 'estimate' truth based on intersubjective consensus which is then independent of any individual's judgment within those in consensus.
All models are wrong some are useful ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong ) is the scientific epistemology. A model that is not wrong - is also a model that is not falsifiable and therefore unscientific (by our current conception of science). If a model were to make accurate predictions AND it were unfalsifiable then it would be our "Theory of everything".

Until then risk/margin of error dictates the accuracy of the model required.

When I build myself a coffee table - I assume the Earth is flat. It is an error. And it is inconsequential.

Agree with the above.

When I fly airplanes I require high precision because errors cost HUMAN LIVES.

This is the no-harm principle in action. It is objective morality.

For the majority the above is morally right and I believe there is an intuitive alignment with the inherent objective moral principles within humanity.
When it is intuitive and effected only the minority that is insufficient to claim it is objective in the perspective of morality.
Point is there are a minority who will disagree with the majority's intuition.
So how can we prove those minority are 'absolutely' wrong in the moral sense.

Even the Golden Rule is not a fool proof moral maxim as there are a minority who will go against it. There are also those who don't give a damn with human and their own lives on Earth and will not hesitate to commit genocides or exterminate the human race to enter paradise with eternal life.

Thus we must ask more 'Buts' and WHYs to get to the point where no more 'WHY' and 'but' need to be raised.
My solution is we need to establish a Framework and System [like the Scientific Framework] for Morality and Ethics that is driven by absolute moral principles.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:31 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:10 am So how can we prove those minority are 'absolutely' wrong in the moral sense.

1. What would you consider to be 'sufficient proof'?
2. Why do we have to prove this and to whom to we have to prove it?

Are you perhaps suggesting that we should have mechanisms to convince those who act "immorally" that they should change their ways?
I'd say we already have those mechanisms in place. We leverage the bandwagon fallacy and incarcerate those who don't play nice. Strength in numbers and all that.

I don't have to convince you of anything if I have the power over you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:10 am Even the Golden Rule is not a fool proof moral maxim as there are a minority who will go against it. There are also those who don't give a damn with human and their own lives on Earth and will not hesitate to commit genocides or exterminate the human race to enter paradise with eternal life.

So we kill them first...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:10 am Thus we must ask more 'Buts' and WHYs to get to the point where no more 'WHY' and 'but' need to be raised.
My solution is we need to establish a Framework and System [like the Scientific Framework] for Morality and Ethics that is driven by absolute moral principles.

We have done this already. Human rights and jurisprudence. The absolute principle is "No harm!". It's work in progress because of the “define X” problem (incompleteness) plaguing all our languages.

If we want ‘true objectivity’ we have to solve this problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pm**

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:26 am Would it be an objective statement, meaning a statement devoid of all personal subjective feelings, to say that someone who murders and rapes without conscience is morally deficient. If so, it's equally possible to pronounce objectively on any moral condition good or bad, extreme or not.

According you your theory, it couldn't be. All you could be really saying is, "Dubious doesn't like "murder and rape."

Moreover, you wouldn't be able to make sense of what this "conscience" thing might be, or why anybody ought to have one, or to obey it if they do have it. There would be no objective reality behind any of the intuitions it was indicating to you. So you might have a conscience, and you might even choose to obey that conscience; but considered rationally, it would be a dysfunctional appendage, a mis-indicator of a reality that simply isn't objectively there, according to the non-objective theory of morality.

The problem with your view, Dube, is not that you're contradicting me; it's that you're contradicting yourself.

P.S. --

Also you refuse to give reasons why Christianity is rationally based while secular morality has no rational foundation.

I've done it repeatedly, actually. But since you're apparently only reading the exchange between us directly, you won't know that. Feel free to look back though my exchange with AV, and you'll see.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:13 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pm
Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:26 am Would it be an objective statement, meaning a statement devoid of all personal subjective feelings, to say that someone who murders and rapes without conscience is morally deficient. If so, it's equally possible to pronounce objectively on any moral condition good or bad, extreme or not.
According you your theory, it couldn't be. All you could be really saying is, "Dubious doesn't like "murder and rape."

Moreover, you wouldn't be able to make sense of what this "conscience" thing might be, or why anybody ought to have one, or to obey it if they do have it. There would be no objective reality behind any of the intuitions it was indicating to you. So you might have a conscience, and you might even choose to obey that conscience; but considered rationally, it would be a dysfunctional appendage, a mis-indicator of a reality that simply isn't objectively there, according to the non-objective theory of morality.

The problem with your view, Dube, is not that you're contradicting me; it's that you're contradicting yourself.

P.S. --
Also you refuse to give reasons why Christianity is rationally based while secular morality has no rational foundation.
I've done it repeatedly, actually. But since you're apparently only reading the exchange between us directly, you won't know that. Feel free to look back though my exchange with AV, and you'll see.

Look who accepts (and appeals to!) the law of non-contradiction without any rational basis!

Do you know what the shortest contradiction in English is? Uttering the phrase "I". Circular reasoning.

Contradictions clearly exist! Why do you treat them as absolutes?

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:14 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:18 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:41 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:32 am Christianity rationally grounded???
No...morality can be rationally grounded IF Christianity is true. That's my claim.
Christianity is true if only God exists is true.

Yes, absolutely. Right on.

I agree there are many Christians and theists who were scientists and has contributed greatly to humanity.
But the significance of their contribution is not due to their belief in a God.

Then you disagree with the consensus of historians of science, and particularly with A.N. Whitehead on this. Whitehead has argued that without Christianity, science qua scientific method would never have gotten started. Indeed, Francis Bacon, who himself invented the scientific method was a devout Christian theologian. His method was based on the supposition that we could expect the world to work according to scientific "laws," because there was a single, law-giver God behind it, rather than multiple erratic beings or no intelligence at all.

Indeed, it is most likely there never would have been what we call "science" today except for Christianity.

Meanwhile, you continue to champion beliefs that have, verifiably and historically, left their followers in poverty and misery for millennia.

Says the person who advocates Hinduism and Buddhism?

Take a look at any country where those beliefs are actually regnant, then look at any country where Christianity is strong -- and you're seriously thinking you can fudge this? I don't think so.

So I can see your description fitting those systems, and verifiably so; but in addition to being the cradle of science, Christianity has been the greatest poverty-relief incentive in human history statistically. I think some common basis in fact will be necessary if we're going to say much more.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:19 pm**

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:13 pm [Look who accepts (and appeals to!) the law of non-contradiction without any rational basis!

It's not the "Law of Non-Contradiction" that I'm referring to, although it's a good law in other circumstances. That law does not say, "Thou shalt not contradict thyself." One can go ahead and contradict oneself as much as one wishes, of course.

I'm just pointing to the very simple, common-sense observation that if a person cannot keep faith with himself in his reasoning, then there is a 0% chance that his reasoning is correct -- and by his own account.

Dubious is essentially touting the idea that all morality is merely subjective, even while insisting on objective moral claims. Rationally speaking, he's shot himself in the foot. I don't have to do it for him.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:28 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:19 pm I'm just pointing to the very simple, common-sense observation that if a person cannot keep faith with himself in his reasoning, then there is a 0% chance that his reasoning is correct -- and by his own account.

Appeal to common sense a.k.a a-priori knowledge. That is THE most idiotic of all Kantian ideas

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:19 pm I'm just pointing to the very simple, common-sense observation that if a person cannot keep faith with himself in his reasoning, then there is a 0% chance that his reasoning is correct -- and by his own account.

That's a load of bullshit too. In probability theory 0% (0) and 100% (1) are infinite belief and infinite disbelief. They are absolute certainties and absolute uncertainties. If you believe in infinities or absolutes - you are religious.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ooypcn7 ... -certainty

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:19 pm Dubious is essentially touting the idea that all morality is merely subjective, even while insisting on objective moral claims. Rationally speaking, he's shot himself in the foot. I don't have to do it for him.

There is always non-0% probability that your own reasoning is flawed. That is - you have failed to understand his argument and (falsely) assumed yourself to be correct.

That is - a false dichotomy.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:30 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pmAll you could be really saying is, "Dubious doesn't like "murder and rape."

Uh-huh. And all you could be really saying is, "God doesn't like "murder and rape." But you'd be wrong. As the bible tells us, god thinks nothing of wiping out the entire human race, apart from Noah and his nearest and dearest, and he is quite at ease with Lot's daughters being gang raped to save a couple of angels

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:45 pm**

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:28 pm Appeal to common sense a.k.a a-priori knowledge.

No. Just an appeal to a thing so obvious that the simplest person can easily grasp it.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:00 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:45 pm No. Just an appeal to a thing so obvious that the simplest person can easily grasp it.

The common person doesn't grasp probability theory - it's far from obvious and it is rather unfortunate that this place we find ourselves in isn't easy or trivial to understand. Perhaps this expectation for "easily accessible knowledge" needs remediation?

You may want to do some homework on "Competence without comprehension". Colloquially - we may also call them rituals. A child doesn't need to understand WHY washing their hands is beneficial - they just need to do it. In the animal kingdom costly signaling has an evolutionary advantage ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signallin ... in_hunting ) that is very useful behavior without actually understanding why it's beneficial.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:30 pm**

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:00 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:45 pm No. Just an appeal to a thing so obvious that the simplest person can easily grasp it.
The common person doesn't grasp probability theory...

Not necessary. All one has to understand is the basic idea of conceptual coherence...in other words, just not contradicting oneself.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:35 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:23 pm My OP question is: what could make morality objective? And by 'objective' I mean 'relying on - or a matter of - facts
Fact: no one wants to be murdered, have their property stolen, have their family members raped, be a slave, etc. Thus by your definition of what you consider objectivity to be, morality that covers those things I've listed are in fact objective. I Think most of you that are arguing this topic are simply stupid. Punch yourselves in the nose until broken and bloody! No? Then it's probably safe to call it objective reasoning that you shouldn't punch people in the nose until it's broken and bloody. And if in fact you want to do that to yourself, or have others do it to you, then you should probably seek the help of a psychologist/psychiatrist due to your self destructive tendencies, because in "fact" all life on planet earth since the beginning of it's time, has always wanted to survive at all costs. It's not a subject of debate, except maybe by idiots. Even cancers (mutations) in animal bodies try to survive at all costs. I mean, isn't that the point of life?

rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions'. For example, is the moral assertion 'slavery is wrong' a fact - a true factual assertion - or is it a value-judgement? The crucial point being that a value-judgement is neither true nor false in the way a factual assertion is true or false.

Some secular moral objectivists claim that slavery is morally wrong because (say) it harms people. But that assumes that harming people is morally wrong, which is a value-judgement. Push our reasons or justifications for our moral values and judgements back as far as we can - and we'll always arrive at another moral judgement. Whatever we claim about existence and nature - life is preferable to death, knowledge to ignorance, happiness to unhappiness, thriving to dwindling - and so on - is a value-judgement. And that's just the way it is. We build and repair our collective moral values and judgements on foundations and with materials of our own making - because we have no choice.

Some theistic moral objectivists claim that slavery is wrong because it's incompatible with the nature and will of a good god that both (of course) exists and created and sustains everything. But to say a god is good is to make a value-judgement, based on moral criteria. And to say those criteria are rooted in the god's nature and will is to say the god is good because the god is good, which is no justification at all, because it begs the question. Like its secular version, theistic moral objectivism has no foundation. (Of course, whether a god exists is a separate question and problem for theists.)

The truth is that morality is subjective - which is just to say that moral assertions express value-judgements rather than factual claims. And to say that means there's no such thing as morality - that our moral values and judgements are empty, pointless or meaningless - is to misunderstand the nature of morality in the first place.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:37 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:30 pm Not necessary. All one has to understand is the basic idea of conceptual coherence...in other words, just not contradicting oneself.

And in order to do that first you have be able to tell the difference between a contradiction and a non-contradiction. Recognition of error is a pre-requisite for error handling.

Which isn't as easy as you make it out to be if you take the modal, temporal and spatial dimensions into account.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:43 pm**

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:37 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:30 pm Not necessary. All one has to understand is the basic idea of conceptual coherence...in other words, just not contradicting oneself.
And in order to do that first you have be able to tell the difference between a contradiction and a non-contradiction. Recognition of error is a pre-requisite for error handling.

Which isn't as easy as you make it out to be if you take the modal, temporal and spatial dimensions into account.

"Buzz, buzz," as Shakespeare so pithily said.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:22 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pm According you your theory, it couldn't be.

I never made a theory out of it. Facts don't require theories which is one reason why you confabulate so many of them, as intentional distortions of what others mean and say. By now, everyone who reads your posts understands your methodology.

But you're a theist, what can one expect! You guys have been at it for over 2000 years and, as they say, practice makes perfect.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pmAll you could be really saying is, "Dubious doesn't like "murder and rape."

True, "Dubious doesn't like "murder and rape", unlike your bible which never considered that kind of behavior particularly offensive and certainly not if practiced against some other group where it becomes a virtual command. The bible has "chosen" it's people as has Jesus who continued the tradition which doesn't include non-Jews...until Paul came along who strove to make it Catholic.

Where morality is concerned the bible should be X-Rated.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pm So you might have a conscience, and you might even choose to obey that conscience; but considered rationally, it would be a dysfunctional appendage, a mis-indicator of a reality that simply isn't objectively there, according to the non-objective theory of morality.

As long as it works it's just plain morality to me dependent on a conscience that can filter behavior.

Unlike you, I don't need to be informed by some "superior being" who doesn't seem to have any ITS own. Perhaps IT too is a victim of a reality that simply isn't objectively there, according to the non-objective theory of morality

Call conscience "a dysfunctional appendage according to the non-objective theory of morality". In your case it remains dysfunctional according to whatever theory of morality. If your conscience becomes too noisy just change theories!

Philosophy Now Forum

What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?