Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:50 am**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:18 am
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:42 am
If there are no objective rules for "incorrectness of arguments" why should I care?
Rules are just rules, so 'objective rules' is a redundancy. And yep, there's no compulsion to follow or care about rules - legal rules excepted, of course.
And morals are just morals. So objective morals is a redundancy. And yep, there's no compulsion to follow or care about morals - with or without exception.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:18 am Yes, I think it's incorrect.
Is that "incorrect" in the way that "objectively incorrect" is redundant; or some other kind of incorrect?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:18 am Now, what about my question?
We'll get to yours when you finish answering mine.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:18 am Please be explicit. What distinguishes the contexts and conventions used in a factual moral assertion from those used in a non-factual moral assertion?
Can you show me how? What distinguishes "correctness" from "incorrectness"?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:18 am Okay. Fair enough - colours to the mast. You know why I think it can never be a fact that X is beautiful or ugly. And I'd point out the morally terrible consequences that can follow from that claim.
But your morality is subjective. Morally terrible - morally non-terrible. What's the difference? It's all just opinions.

Okay. This is going nowhere. Thanks.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:56 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:50 am Okay. This is going nowhere. Thanks.

That's not true

It was going exactly to the point.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:00 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:37 am So VA may be (if unwittingly) advocating a form of virtue ethics. But that can never establish the existence of moral facts and objectivity. It cannot be a fact that we should be empathetic. Many of us just think - for good reason - that it's a good idea.

Nah, my morality-proper -eliminate evil to enable its related goods- has nothing to do with virtue per se albeit there are some overlap.

These example of virtues [good] are way off from my specific taxonomy of 'evil acts'.
What are examples of virtues?
Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Ben Franklin's '13 Virtues' path to personal perfection
Then he considered various virtues that, if mastered, would counteract his unwanted behavior. His list of 13: Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity and Humility.

All facts are conditioned upon a human-based FSK [objective].
As such it is possible for human-based virtue FSK facts which are objective.
I have not deliberated on this and I am not interested in that at present.

But - totally agree with your patient critique. But sadly, it will make no difference. VA is impermeable to reason.
I have provided tons of philosophical reasonings to support my arguments and claims.

You? nothing, zilch!!

You say your moral theory has little or nothing to do with virtue ethics. But the empathy that you assume we need to promote is a virtue.

And you ignore the fact that the choice and nature of the virtue - or 'goodness' - that we should promote are matters of opinion, and therefore subjective. You can't explain why we should promote empathy. You just assume we should, and ignore or deny the assumption.

You've backed yourself up against a wall, through which reasoned argument just can't penetrate.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:08 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:00 am You say your moral theory has little or nothing to do with virtue ethics.

Which is absurd. He specifically contrasts his morality with those moralities based on rules and injunctions. So, it's not deontology. He does look at consequences, but his focus is on making people have certain characteristics - precisely in the manner of Greek virtue ethics. The strategy is virtue ethics centered. Consequentialism focuses on the results of acts in contexts. He is look at changing character and what this will do for society. The approach fits neither of the other main moral schemas.

Ah, well. Try to get a little clarity in there and this is what you get.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:56 am**

To better understand VA you need to abandon the notion that he starts with the principles and then follows them via argument to a conclusion. Admittedly that is an idealised model anyway which might workably apply to as many as 3 philosophers ever. But the usual thing is to try to adhere to such an approach by periodically revisting our starting assumptions and ensuring that they at least relate in some manner to the resulting work. VA doesn't even try that.

His work is so sloppy and shit precisely because he has spent a decade or so back filling from a handful of conclusions to a discordant heap of priciples and half arguments that have fuck all to do with each other.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:59 am**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:08 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:00 am You say your moral theory has little or nothing to do with virtue ethics.
Which is absurd. He specifically contrasts his morality with those moralities based on rules and injunctions. So, it's not deontology. He does look at consequences, but his focus is on making people have certain characteristics - precisely in the manner of Greek virtue ethics. The strategy is virtue ethics centered. Consequentialism focuses on the results of acts in contexts. He is look at changing character and what this will do for society. The approach fits neither of the other main moral schemas.

Ah, well. Try to get a little clarity in there and this is what you get.

I think your analysis is correct. And thanks - it does explain a lot. Perhaps we can persuade VA to complete one or both of the following sentences.

Human empathy is good because...
Lack of human empathy is evil because...

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:04 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:56 am To better understand VA you need to abandon the notion that he starts with the principles and then follows them via argument to a conclusion. Admittedly that is an idealised model anyway which might workably apply to as many as 3 philosophers ever. But the usual thing is to try to adhere to such an approach by periodically revisiting our starting assumptions and ensuring that they at least relate in some manner to the resulting work. VA doesn't even try that.

His work is so sloppy and shit precisely because he has spent a decade or so back filling from a handful of conclusions to a discordant heap of principles and half arguments that have fuck all to do with each other.

Yep. Spose it passes the time. And bad or non-existent arguments can help to sharpen up or generate good ones.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:10 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:04 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:56 am To better understand VA you need to abandon the notion that he starts with the principles and then follows them via argument to a conclusion. Admittedly that is an idealised model anyway which might workably apply to as many as 3 philosophers ever. But the usual thing is to try to adhere to such an approach by periodically revisiting our starting assumptions and ensuring that they at least relate in some manner to the resulting work. VA doesn't even try that.

His work is so sloppy and shit precisely because he has spent a decade or so back filling from a handful of conclusions to a discordant heap of principles and half arguments that have fuck all to do with each other.
Yep. Spose it passes the time. And bad or non-existent arguments can help to sharpen up or generate good ones.

I get it. I have been slowly reading a book VA recommended and large parts of it are good. In fact I just stole an entire spiel I did in the gender sub about homeostatic property clustering straight out of a Richard Boyd paper in that same book.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 1:20 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:59 am I think your analysis is correct. And thanks - it does explain a lot. Perhaps we can persuade VA to complete one or both of the following sentences.

Human empathy is good because...
Lack of human empathy is evil because...

That would seem to pretty much force a demonstration of the source of the knowledge. I say seem because unfortunately a common online strategy is to repeat one's whole position. Essentially implying that the answer is in there. We find mirror neurons these lead to empathy, facts are based on FSKs, so we combine morality with the finding of mirror neurons and.....

But in the much longer version that VA repeats now.

When we mention that the brain has aggressive AND empathetic neuronal patterns, he says he has said this himself. Which he has.

When we ask why we don't enhance the aggressive ones, but choose only to enhance the empathetic ones....

I don't think we get a clear answer, just more repetition.

(I know you are aware of this just laying it out in a slightly different form where it may get seen by VA.)

Brains have aggressive neuron patterrns
Brains have empathetic neuron patterns.

If finding a pattern in the brain means that it is an oughtness
then both are oughtnesses. This he acknowledges.

If these oughtnesses constitute objective moral facts, well, then they both contitute objective moral facts. And then they are both presence in objective strengths/priorities/degrees of influence.

The moment we choose one over the other to enhance our choice is not based on the brain, because one moral fact is ignored or given less weight than its OBJECTIVE MORAL PRESENENCE indicates in the brain.

Where is that coming from?

My deep fear is that the answer will be: from the moral FSK.

So, how did the moral FSK decide to go against the ratio of objective moral facts in the brain and give one precendence over the other?
Why don't we accept the current ratio of objective moral facts in the brain?

VA views today's humans as morally primitive. He has said as much a number of times. Well, if we look in their brains we find aggressive and empathetic moral oughtness facts in the ratios they have. From what dimension is he judging them as primitive and in need of development? It's not the brains.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:21 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 1:20 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:59 am I think your analysis is correct. And thanks - it does explain a lot. Perhaps we can persuade VA to complete one or both of the following sentences.

Human empathy is good because...
Lack of human empathy is evil because...
That would seem to pretty much force a demonstration of the source of the knowledge. I say seem because unfortunately a common online strategy is to repeat one's whole position. Essentially implying that the answer is in there. We find mirror neurons these lead to empathy, facts are based on FSKs, so we combine morality with the finding of mirror neurons and.....

But in the much longer version that VA repeats now.

When we mention that the brain has aggressive AND empathetic neuronal patterns, he says he has said this himself. Which he has.

When we ask why we don't enhance the aggressive ones, but choose only to enhance the empathetic ones....

I don't think we get a clear answer, just more repetition.

(I know you are aware of this just laying it out in a slightly different form where it may get seen by VA.)

Brains have aggressive neuron patterrns
Brains have empathetic neuron patterns.

If finding a pattern in the brain means that it is an oughtness
then both are oughtnesses. This he acknowledges.

If these oughtnesses constitute objective moral facts, well, then they both contitute objective moral facts. And then they are both presence in objective strengths/priorities/degrees of influence.

The moment we choose one over the other to enhance our choice is not based on the brain, because one moral fact is ignored or given less weight than its OBJECTIVE MORAL PRESENENCE indicates in the brain.

Where is that coming from?

My deep fear is that the answer will be: from the moral FSK.

So, how did the moral FSK decide to go against the ratio of objective moral facts in the brain and give one precendence over the other?
Why don't we accept the current ratio of objective moral facts in the brain?

VA views today's humans as morally primitive. He has said as much a number of times. Well, if we look in their brains we find aggressive and empathetic moral oughtness facts in the ratios they have. From what dimension is he judging them as primitive and in need of development? It's not the brains.

Yep. My only reservation about the sequence is the 'a pattern in the brain represents an oughtness'. VA denies that this a moral oughtness. But then what kind of oughtness it is remains unclear - so that it can magically morph into a moral oughtness - an 'objective moral fact' - when fed into 'the morality FSK'.

So you're right. The FSK invention is the machine that's supposed to grind out moral facts, just as it grinds out scientific facts. Hence the insistence that facts exist only inside FSKs. It's madly consistent.

It's a bit like a trumpist fiction: swallow the first lie, and the rest go down easy.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:30 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:21 pm
It's a bit like a trumpist fiction: swallow the first lie, and the rest go down easy.

It doesn't feel like that to me. It feels like, swallow this pink pill, and then also please swallow this other pill whose box says "WARNING! Not to be taken with the pink pill!"

You know the two pills are incompatible but you're being asked to swallow both at once

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:34 pm**

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:30 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:21 pm
It's a bit like a trumpist fiction: swallow the first lie, and the rest go down easy.
It doesn't feel like that to me. It feels like, swallow this pink pill, and then also please swallow this other pill whose box says "WARNING! Not to be taken with the pink pill!"

You know the two pills are incompatible but you're being asked to swallow both at once

Tooshay.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 5:31 pm**

Just an observation on VA's claim that mirror neurons are good things, because they programme us to empathise with others.

But the function of mirror neurons is to induce and, as it were, reward imitation. And empathy - 'the ability to understand and share the feelings of another' - need not have morally right or good results. One could empathise with a murderer.

I've certainly been guilty of assuming that empathy is a good thing - a virtue. Note to self.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 6:18 pm**

Just a reminder that examining objective morality in an ethical theory forum is one thing, taking any technical conclusions arrived at here out into the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions revolving around "conflicting goods" another thing altogether.

If I do say so myself.

So, if anyone is interested, I'd be inclined myself to explore theoretical conclusions over in the applied ethics forum: viewforum.php?f=7

Given a particular context likely to be familiar to most of us here.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2023 6:59 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 6:18 pm Just a reminder that examining objective morality in an ethical theory forum is one thing, taking any technical conclusions arrived at here out into the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions revolving around "conflicting goods" another thing altogether.

If I do say so myself.

So, if anyone is interested, I'd be inclined myself to explore theoretical conclusions over in the applied ethics forum: viewforum.php?f=7

Given a particular context likely to be familiar to most of us here.

Thanks. So far I've not seen anything to distinguish ethics - 'moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity' - from moral theory. My blinkered, no doubt. I'll have a look at the applied ethics forum. Any OP recommendations?

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?