Philosophy Now Forum

Most the arguments I have with moral facts deniers is based on my take on instrumentalism [scientific antirealism] in relation to moral facts while those who counter my views are on the scientific realism side.

Below is a general description of what is Scientific Realism and Instrumentation.
What I want to highlight is scientific realism is a metaphysical approach where its underlying essence [beyond the empirical] is mystical and a taboo for the more rational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted.
A believer of scientific realism takes the universe as described by science to be true (or approximately true), because of their assertion that science can be used to find the truth (or approximate truth) about both the physical and metaphysical in the Universe.

Scientific realism involves two basic positions:

• First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce.
  Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains. It is important to note that one might be a scientific realist regarding some sciences while not being a realist regarding others.

According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the following features:

• The claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory. This is the semantic commitment of scientific realism.
  
  The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently. This is the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism.
  
  There are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says. This is the epistemological commitment.

Arguments for and against scientific realism

For
No miracles argument
Against
Pessimistic induction
Constructivist epistemology
Underdetermination problem
Incompatible models argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting natural phenomena.
According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.[1]
Scientific theory is merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities, while theories themselves do not reveal supposedly hidden aspects of nature that somehow explain these laws.[2] Instrumentalism is a perspective originally introduced by Pierre Duhem in 1906.[2]

Rejecting scientific realism's ambitions to uncover metaphysical truth about nature,[2] instrumentalism is usually categorized as an antirealism, although its mere lack of commitment to scientific theory's realism can be termed nonrealism.
Instrumentalism merely bypasses debate concerning whether, for example, a particle spoken about in particle physics is a discrete entity enjoying individual existence, or is an excitation mode of a region of a field, or is something else altogether.[3][4][5]
Instrumentalism holds that theoretical terms need only be useful to predict the phenomena, the observed outcomes.[3]

Scientific realism is related to much older philosophical positions including rationalism and metaphysical realism. However, it is a thesis about science developed in the twentieth century. Portraying scientific realism in terms of its ancient, medieval, and early modern cousins is at best misleading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... sm#History

The historical point above is very revealing with scientific realism with its link to metaphysical realism, thus philosophical realism [absolute mind-independence] and its evolutionary origins and default of a sense of externalness.

This dogmatic and ideological clinging to its evolutionary origin is a hindrance to moral progress for humanity.


Views??

Notes:

Notes:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:56 am Most the arguments I have with moral facts deniers is based on my take on instrumentalism [scientific antirealism] in relation to moral facts while those who counter my views are on the scientific realism side.

Instrumentalism is considers conclusions and models to be useful in relation to desired goals. If you drag instrumentalism into moral theory, it will continue the same attitude. If we have a desired goal, instumentalist approaches would then evaluate the tools used - for example, a proposed moral - in terms of how well it does in achieving the desired goal. It precisely does not evaluate the objectivity of the desired goal.

Instrumentalism goes against metaphysical realists, yes.
So one can argue from an instrumentalist stance against contrasting objective conclusions in science with objective conclusions in morals. It can make the case that the conclusions are merely useful or not.
But let's be clear moral realism is a realism and instrumentalism does not suddenly consider moral conclusions to be realist.
Instrumentalism is not realism, not in science nor in morality

Scientific Realism claims that Instrumentalism is an opera without singers...

-Imp

Instrumentation has its own inherent goals [purpose, objective] and explained below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
In philosophy of science and in epistemology, instrumentalism is a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the worth of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting natural phenomena.

According to instrumentalists, a successful scientific theory reveals nothing known either true or false about nature's unobservable objects, properties or processes.[1]

Scientific theory is merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities,
while theories themselves do not reveal supposedly hidden aspects of nature that somehow explain these laws.[2]

There is no question of 'desired' goals from instrumentation.

As stated above,
"Scientific theory [based on instrumentation] is merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities,.."

It would be the same for moral theory [based on instrumentation] which is "merely a tool whereby humans predict observations in a particular domain of nature by formulating laws, which state or summarize regularities,."

In contrast scientific realism does the same but with the addition 'assumption' there is something substantial beyond those observations and laws which is absolutely mind-independent and they exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
Thus for realists, if one claim moral realism, then they have to assume there is something substantial beyond those observations and laws which is absolutely mind-independent and they exists regardless of whether there are human or not.

The point is instrumentalists' claims of moral realism is not based on any assumption but rather based on an objective human-based framework and system.
There is no need for instrumentalists [moral or otherwise] to prove there is an underlying mind-independent objective thing because they never claim [assume] there is such a thing in the first place.

The question for moral instrumentalists is whether their moral realism principles and strategies work to promote perpetual peace or not [which must be verified, tested, repeated and justified], if yes, they will continue with it, if not the thesis will be abandoned just like what is done in scientific instrumentalism.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 5:24 am The point is instrumentalists' claims of moral realism is not based on any assumption but rather based on an objective human-based framework and system.

Nope. They have to have a value from outside instrumentalism, a goal. Useful to do what? Something from outside what instrumentalism decides why we research X and then why we implement X.

The question for moral instrumentalists is whether their moral realism principles and strategies work to promote perpetual peace or not

And bang, there it is. Your particular value and one that cannot be produced by intrumentalist methodologies. That is your desire - and one shared by many but obviously not all. And it has to be prioritized in relation to other values in the real world. And the prioritization of values also cannot be determined by instrumentalism.

Right here you magically produced THE VALUE as if it was objective.

Without desire, we do not engage in the research or application.

And if you use science to determine what desire one should follow, you will be studying people in cultures and with a variety of desires and priorities.

We have the people who, for example, want to create as much human greatness as possible We have the people who want perpetual peace.

How do we determine which value should be prioritized over the other?

Each group then uses an instrumentalist methodology to find out what leads to their priority being supported. And each one comes up with, from that research a different set of policies, laws, educational systems, morals, and priorities.

And instrumentalism cannot decide which one is correct.

You have your goal/value/moral good. And yes, you can from there find out to some degree what would lead to achieving that.

But so can others from their guiding value (s).


In moral instrumentalism, morals are typically viewed as useful tools for achieving the goals of a certain person or population rather than as objective truths. This perspective aligns with a broader instrumentalist approach, which prioritizes the practical utility of concepts over their inherent truth or falsity.

Key Points on Moral Instrumentalism
Utility-Based Morality:

Moral principles are valued for their effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. They are seen as instruments for promoting well-being, social harmony, or other specified goals.
Context-Dependent:

The applicability and value of moral norms can depend on the context and the specific goals of individuals or societies. What is considered "moral" may vary according to what is most effective in a given situation.
Pragmatic Approach:

Moral instrumentalism is closely aligned with pragmatic ethical theories, which evaluate moral principles based on their practical consequences and success in fulfilling certain aims.
Subjectivity:

Since the focus is on achieving particular goals, moral instrumentalism can be subjective. Different people or cultures may have different goals, leading to different sets of moral principles.
Flexible and Adaptive:

This approach allows for flexibility and adaptability in moral reasoning. As goals and circumstances change, the moral principles deemed appropriate can also change.

In moral instrumentalism, morals are typically viewed as useful tools for achieving the goals of a certain person or population rather than as objective truths. This perspective aligns with a broader instrumentalist approach, which prioritizes the practical utility of concepts over their inherent truth or falsity.

Key Points on Moral Instrumentalism
Utility-Based Morality:

Moral principles are valued for their effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes. They are seen as instruments for promoting well-being, social harmony, or other specified goals.
Context-Dependent:

The applicability and value of moral norms can depend on the context and the specific goals of individuals or societies. What is considered "moral" may vary according to what is most effective in a given situation.
Pragmatic Approach:

Moral instrumentalism is closely aligned with pragmatic ethical theories, which evaluate moral principles based on their practical consequences and success in fulfilling certain aims.
Subjectivity:

Since the focus is on achieving particular goals, moral instrumentalism can be subjective. Different people or cultures may have different goals, leading to different sets of moral principles.
Flexible and Adaptive:

This approach allows for flexibility and adaptability in moral reasoning. As goals and circumstances change, the moral principles deemed appropriate can also change.

Objective vs. Instrumental Morality
Objective Morality: Holds that moral principles are universal truths that apply regardless of individual goals or contexts. Moral facts exist independently of human beliefs or desires.

Instrumental Morality: Views moral principles as tools for achieving specific goals. The validity of these principles is tied to their effectiveness in promoting desired outcomes rather than their inherent truth.

My guess is that should VA respond to me, he will say but that's the old conception of objective morality. Yeah, yeah. But that misses the point. Instrumentalism cannot possibly determine an objective morality, even the version that VA calls morality proper or something like that.

It can suggest a methodology once you already have a moral priority, to help you determine what tactics to use to achieve the enhancement of your particular morality.

Unless VA wants to point to research where the correct moral attitude is observable and its correctness is observable. Show us a picture.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 7:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:56 am Most the arguments I have with moral facts deniers is based on my take on instrumentalism [scientific antirealism] in relation to moral facts while those who counter my views are on the scientific realism side.

Instrumentalism is considers conclusions and models to be useful in relation to desired goals. If you drag instrumentalism into moral theory, it will continue the same attitude. If we have a desired goal, instumentalist approaches would then evaluate the tools used - for example, a proposed moral - in terms of how well it does in achieving the desired goal. It precisely does not evaluate the objectivity of the desired goal.

Instrumentalism goes against metaphysical realists, yes.
So one can argue from an instrumentalist stance against contrasting objective conclusions in science with objective conclusions in morals. It can make the case that the conclusions are merely useful or not.
But let's be clear moral realism is a realism and instrumentalism does not suddenly consider moral conclusions to be realist.
Instrumentalism is not realism, not in science nor in morality

Indeed, instrumentalism in regards to morality is not the claim VA likes to make, that morals are real or moral realism is true, but instead the claim that morals are useful.

Those claims could be equally supported by a moral non realist! A moral non realist could equally claim (and probably frequently does) that morals are useful.

This argument feels like it's contrary to moral realism, not in support of it. Congratulations va.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:14 am Indeed, instrumentalism in regards to morality is not the claim VA likes to make, that morals are real or moral realism is true, but instead the claim that morals are useful.

and useful in relation to a specific person's values or goals, or the same with some community or group. In itself instrumentalism can't point to 'perpetual peace' as an objectively moral goal or determine that is the right goal and should have priority over other goals. If that is your goal, instrumentalism would say that when we do research to find out how to achieve that goal, we don't care if our research is correct about the world out there. We only care if it helps us achieve the goals. Someone who is a warmonger, for whatever reasons, could have that attitude about their goals and their epistemological outlook as they do research into how best to achieve them.

Those claims could be equally supported by a moral non realist! A moral non realist could equally claim (and probably frequently does) that morals are useful.

Yes.

This argument feels like it's contrary to moral realism, not in support of it. Congratulations va.

Exactly. Instrumentalism is a kind of antirealism. VA does not want a moral antirealism, unless he's changed his mind about something utterly fundamental.