Carry-Over Thread
by JoyThe Religious Belief and Mental Health thread is too long to follow, yet keeps going on a lengthy tangent anyway. Obviously, the combatants aren't done yet. So this thread is for those who still want to carry on the conversation.
For my part, keiths' silly, flip-flopping assertions demonstrate that he cannot figure out what the heck is being discussed. He's portrayed the concept at issue several ways, depending on who has most recently debunked his silly, flip-flopping assertions.
For example, in my response to Raevmo on Oct. 25, I forwarded the notion that "of course there are objective morals," as these are agreed upon by a majority and codified into law (religious, cultural or political) applying to ALL subject to the enforcement provisions provided. In forwarding that notion, I further mentioned that of course there are those few who disagree (will break the law and incur punishments), and that laws change - evolve - over time as our sense of right and wrong hopefully progresses.
To which keiths responded:
The objective morality we're talking about in this thread is absolute morality "” a standard that holds regardless of an individual's personal inclinations, cultural background, or genetic makeup.
Notice the italicized qualifier "absolute." Thus did keiths try to divert the subject early on in that thread from what is objective to what is absolute. This was of course quickly dropped when the difference was pointed out and he had no reasonable rejoinder. Absolute morality simply wasn't the subject under discussion. Objective morality was.
The objectified moral standard applies to ALL subjects regardless of whether they agree or choose to violate. If they get caught violating, they get arrested, tried, fined or imprisoned, and in the case of murder, possibly executed. In order to be absolute in the sense keiths appealed to, there would be no need for objective codification because agreement and adherence to the moral standard would be universal.
Way on down the thread at 300+ comments, keiths - still strangely unwilling to admit defeat or just let the discussion slide - replies to stunney with yet another appeal to the soundly refuted appeal to 'absolute truth' that no one (including scientists) has access to in this reality:
As I've said before, if you want to establish something as objectively immoral, you need to appeal to something more than mere consensus.
For the record, since I'm starting this carry-over thread, keiths has just refuted the entire paradigm of evolutionary biology and indicted the whole 'culture war' being carried on by posers cloaking themselves in the mantle of science in order to pretend that their consensus theoretic is some kind of OBJECTIVE truth (a.k.a. per this argument 'absolute') about biological evolution.
Good job, keiths!
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
keiths says in the other thread:
1. What is the definition of "empirical"?
2. Is the "fact" that calcium atoms contain 20 protons the result of empirical observation (ultimately subjective, objectified by consensus from there)?
3. Has anyone anywhere ever empirically observed a proton?
Fact is (actual fact) is that what we call a "proton" is just a measured property of field dynamics. The measurements are done by instruments we have engineered to measure such things we cannot empirically observe, and the definitions of varying field dynamic properties are agreed upon in consensus manner by those involved in studying the properties of field dynamics. There is nothing absolute here, nothing empirical here, and nothing objective here…
…unless keiths is willing to admit that what counts as "objective" are those principles and definitions held by consensus agreement. Until they change, usually based upon new technologies and new understandings and new agreements.
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Ah, but Joy you forget that keiths and his crowd deny the significance of their own philosophical underpinnings when it comes to interpreting empirical evidence. You can usually expect someone tethered to nothing intellectually absolute to fluctuate like a weather vane!
Your last paragraph (in the blog post) makes an excellent point. Re title this thread "Right and Wrong as a Hint to the Emptiness of the 'Law of Evolution'."
Comment by todd — November 3, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Joy wrote,
New understanding of what? Of what is real about what is being studied? So that there is disagreement about the true nature of reality, implicitly suggests a something real to disagree over?
Morality is no different. Slavery was considered moral until an appeal to a higher order overturned such a thought. Were the arguments which appealed to the immorality of slavery invalid simply because consensus was against it? If consensus were all that were needed for morality, why abandon slavery? Was slavery wrong even when legal?
That an objective moral order exists is without question. What the moral rules are is what we are discovering.
Comment by todd — November 3, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
5mm asks (in the previous thread):
5mm,
I do read your comments, but to be honest, I don't always find them worth a response, since they tend to miss the point.
For example, you wrote:
This is tangential to the debate in these threads, which has been over whether objective morality exists and whether (and how) it can be accessed. Stunney, for example, has claimed over and over that it can be accessed via "reason and experience." I disagree. That is what we have been debating.
Also, I notice that you say that moral truths must be presupposed "in order to function in society." But if the criterion for whether something is moral or not is whether it helps us function in society, then you are not assuming your moral principles — you're deriving them from analysis and/or observation of what makes societies function, thus contradicting your own claim.
Comment by keiths — November 3, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
todd:
The way our minds work. We 'know' we live in a relative universe. Thus we 'know' that weighing relative properties must assume absolute lynchpins even if we can never hope to empirically observe those absolutes.
IOW, we live in a world consisting of relative admixtures of opposing absolute concepts. Life and death. Dark and light. Good and evil. A regular yin-yang that facilitates existence itself and allows us to perceive and experience the admixtures. All the admixtures we perceive in this relative reality are discerned against their relative opposites. All the way to entirely conceptual absolutes.
The definition of "empirical" is that which is directly observed or perceived through our sensory equipment. Which comes out in the end through our information processing equipment *as* what we perceptually experience. This is all subjective, particular to our perceptual equipment, information processors and direct experience. If more than one of us can agree on our perceptions and experience of a given phenomenon, our conclusions become objective. Fred empirically experiences the same thing George does. Conclusion: that car really did hit a tree.
Everything we call "objective" is an agreed-upon conclusion about subjective experience.
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
You might attempt to define moral truths as "that which helps you function in society" i.e. live morally or play well with others but to do so would be misleading and simplistic.
If I defined mathematical truth as that which helps you do math you might think I'm talking about pencil and paper or calculator and miss the point of what I was saying entirely.
Which is apparently what you did.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 3, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
keiths:
Is this contention based on objective transcendental moral truth? If not why should I or anyone else care what you say?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 3, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Keiths:
You surprise me Keiths. You juxtapose two comments and infer some logical inconsistency on the part of the author. Look at them closely. To say that moral truths must be presupposed "in order to function in society" is to make a practical observation and does not presuppose the underlying moral plausibility of such moral precepts. Totalitarian rulers throughout history have recognized this and have cranked up propaganda machines and secret police organizations to ensure that their moral precepts will be presupposed by the populace out of fear or brainwashing if convincing arguments do not hold sway.
The functional aspect to moral precepts is not an indicator of their moral plausibility and you cannot get that out of the statements to which you refer in your comment. Functional societies are not necessarily moral ones. Nazi Germany was an efficient machine but a textbook example of a society built on erroneous moral precepts.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Why are they regarded as objective?
First of all one must first realize that we all start out presupposing something including what we consider to be "objective" Are you there yet?
Correct me if I am wrong but "same degree of certainty" to you means that a moral truth must be empirically verified.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — November 3, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
There are so many things to pick on here it is hard to know where to start. Maybe with this quote from from Joy:
Let's get this clear. You are saying there are objective morals because they are agreed upon by a majority. I cannot see any other way to interpret what you have written. Please correct me if I have it wrong.
I would be interested to know if ffm, bradford and todd agree with this assertion.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 3, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Those of you who are already aware of Joy's problems with reading comprehension and logical thinking can skip the rest of this comment. I'm just pointing out more of the same.
In the previous thread, I wrote:
Joy replied in the opening post:
As you might guess, we were talking about absolute morality, using 'objective' as a synonym for 'absolute'. Joy didn't catch on, and refused to believe it even after she was corrected, even though we're still talking about absolute morality, as you can see from todd's comment above (and of course by reading the previous thread).
She continued:
Not true. Moral laws (whether absolute or relative) can be broken, unlike the laws of physics. They are prescriptive, not descriptive.
The rest of Joy's confusion seems to stem from a belief that something becomes objective only when two or more people agree on it:
I'm driving on a deserted country road. My car hits a tree, the airbags deploy, my forehead gets bruised, steam is hissing out of my radiator, and my OnStar system announces that it is calling 911. Did the accident happen, objectively? According to Joy's criterion, no.
My response? "Earth to Joy… Come in, Joy…"
Comment by keiths — November 3, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
My own view is not that majority rules in terms of the plausibility of moral precepts. Rather people have a built-in moral compass that guides their assessment of moral precepts. This is implied by both religious and evolutionary perspectives- one of those occasions when the two are in sync.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
keiths:
No, what has been debated is a definition of what counts as "objective" for anything physical, conceptual or experiential. As mentioned in the OP on this carry-over, you at first tried to assert that "objective" means "absolute." But after having it pointed out to you several times by several people that the terms "objective" and "absolute" refer to entirely different conceptual categories, you dropped the pretense.
I maintain that the definition of "objective" includes the sets of all things physical, conceptual and experiential that people can agree upon in definitional terms. Thus our agreement that refractive wavelength X constitutes the color "red" (a discriminative label someone speaking English agreed upon and that we now teach to our children as a matter of course) makes any observation of that color objective - the fire engine is objectively red. Regardless of the specific quale you subjectively experience when you see red as compared to the specific quale I subjectively experience when I see red. Whatever qualia we experience as "red," we agree that it's objectively defined as red.
You have yet to forward a definition of objective that makes it anything other than empirical observations and experience (subjective) that we agree among ourselves *is* whatever arbitrary 'objective' label we decide to attach to it. Or that moral percepts do not fall under this definition as much as any scientific fact, hypothesis or theory derived from empirical observation and agreed to by others who work with the same type of empirical observations.
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Bradford (I think)
For the most part I agree but I would add that some of the things that we understand to be moral are difficult to explain in a evolutionary world view, altruism to strangers and animals for example. And I would be careful of materialists attempts to define morality as "that which is good for my genes."
But that line of thought is a completely different subject from what we are discussing.
what we wish to determine is does our moral compass somehow tap into objective reality? And if it does not what right do we have to live as if it does?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 3, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
keiths,
Yes I assumed you did not. But you were asking for an observation based morality from those who do. I was curious if you have a moral stance based on (non-objective) observations. A common criticisms from folks like you is that religious people don't employ the same rigorous methods and standards as found in science for their own beliefs. I assume you have a strong moral stance. For something so important as morality can you justify your moral views with the same rigor that you demand for religious views?
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 3, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
keiths:
No, KEITHS was talking about 'objective' as a synonym of 'absolute'. That doesn't make it so.
Thesaurus.com lists synonyms of "absolute" in 4 separate [adjective] uses as:
1. complete, consummate, downright, entire, flat-out, free, full, infinite, outright, plenary, pure, sheer, simple, straight out, supreme, thorough, total, unabridged, unadulterated, unconditional, unlimited, unqualified, unrestricted, utter, without limit.
2. absolutist, arbitrary, authoritarian, autocratic, autonomous, despotic, dictatorial, full, monocratic, preemptory, sovereign, supreme, totalitarian, tyrannical, tyrannous.
3. actual, categorical, conclusive, consummate, decide, decisive, definite, exact, factual, fixed, genuine, infallible, positive, precise, sure, unambiguous, undeniable, unequivocal, unmitigated, unquestionable.
4. categorical, complete, excellent, faultless, flawless, ideal, impeccable, thorough, ultimate, unblemished, unflawed, untarnished.
Does anybody see the word "objective" in there anywhere? I don't, and I've read the list twice. Just because keiths wants to re-define a word-concept as something not recognized by those whose job it is to parse languages for a living and tell us what the synonyms are, does not mean that his redefinitions are authoritative. Or mean anything at all outside keiths' own [entirely subjective] mind.
The definition (Mirriam Webster) of 'objective' per the adjective uses (plus synonyms) are:
Objective, adjective
Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts (contrasted with subjective).
[use] 1. Impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, evenhanded, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached. 2. Factual, actual, real, empirical, evidence-based, verifiable.
Anybody see 'absolute' in there? I don't. Here's the MW definition of 'absolute' in adjective uses (plus synonyms):
Absolute, adjective
1. Not qualified or diminished in any way; total. 2. Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
Anybody see 'objective' in there? I don't.
Give it up, keiths. Once again I am amazed at how deep you'll dig your own grave on such a sideline subject as this.
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I said:
keiths replied:
See how that works? I say an "absolute moral standard" would be unbreakable - adherence would be universal. So keiths says not so, because an "absolute moral standard" would be breakable - a contradiction in terms all by itself [ed].
ARGH!!!! He can't even agree that we've agreed, because he'd previously tried to confuse the issue by asserting that 'objective' means 'absolute' to support his claim that moral standards can't be 'objective' because they're not 'absolute'.
This is so stupid it makes my hair hurt! §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Joy,
I laughed when I saw your comment, because you've vividly demonstrated, far better than I could have hoped, exactly the point I was trying to make: your reading comprehension is atrocious.
You wrote:
I replied:
Somehow you interpreted that as meaning that I agreed with you:
You capped it off with this:
Joy, read what I wrote, word by word, slowly:
Not true. Moral laws (whether absolute or relative) can be broken, unlike the laws of physics. They are prescriptive, not descriptive.
The first sentence, minus the parenthetical phrase. Please read it slowly:
Moral laws can be broken, unlike the laws of physics.
Now ask yourself: does that sentence say that moral laws can be broken, or that they cannot be broken?
Next, look at your final sentence and read it slowly:
This is so stupid it makes my hair hurt!
Now ask yourself: where is the stupidity coming from?
And the next time you're about to accuse someone of making a boneheaded mistake, why not pause and ask yourself:
Am I about to make an idiot of myself? §;o)
P.S. No wonder you had no idea what we were talking about in the previous thread.
Comment by keiths — November 3, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
This is tangential but it contains a common confusion which I think is worth pointing out. There may be people who define morality as "that which is good for my genes" but it is certainly not how I define it. Morality may be the result of what is good for our genes but that is not what statements about morality mean. Our desire to help others very probably evolved because it was good for our genes. But that doesn't mean our desire to help others is a desire to do what is good for our genes. Just as our liking for sweet things probably evolved because once upon a time eating calories was good for our genes and most sweet things are high in calories. But our liking for eating sweet things is not a liking for eating calories.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 3, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Speaking of moral standards (or the lack thereof), I see that Joy has now edited her previous comment, long after the 30-minute deadline that the rest of us are subject to.
This paragraph:
Has been altered to this:
The problem is that she forgot to edit the following paragraph, which begins like this:
…which makes absolutely no sense, since she just got through fudging the preceding paragraph to say that we didn't agree.
Joy, why not let it rest? Even I am starting to feel embarrassed for you now.
Comment by keiths — November 3, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
This comment got stuck in moderation overnight, so I don't know how many even saw it let alone read it. But I wanted to highlight one small snippet, as it illustrates perfectly the fundamental confusion of the Three Amigos:
The Amigos' confusion is the like the one that thinks that if 5 billion people testify to perceiving objectively real aircraft flying in the sky (in person when they went to Mallorca last summer, or on TV, or in a film, or in photographs, or hearing them roar overheard; in technical books about aeronautics by Boeing engineers, in the recounted memories of retired Sikorsky manufacturing workers told on the porch after Sunday dinner to the grandkids, or in the war memoirs by military pilots, or in musicians singing "I'm Leaving On A Jet Plane, Don't Know When I'll Be Back Again", or in travel writing, used aircraft tickets, witness interviews to the 9-11 Commission, references to aircraft in novels and short stories, the existence of 'air traffic' control towers etc); and if one is an anti-realist about the objective reality of aircraft, then all one has to do to justify one's aircraft anti-realism and defeat the 5 billion is to label this vast witness to the objective reality of aircraft as nothing more than merely a vast witness to 'subjective aircraft', i.e., to subjective experiences of aircraft, and insist instead that aircraft don't objectively exist in reality. And so one aircraft anti-realist defeats the testimony of everyone else. Perhaps the aircraft anti-realist even has an error theory of aircraft. Oh sure, the anti-realist will readily concede, we certainly have loads of aircraft-related words and concepts. Oh sure, it certainly seems as if there really are aircraft that fly in the sky. Oh sure, he'll say, I'm not denying that vast numbers of people have experiences which lead them to believe in the objective existence of a class of physical objects, to which we appear to refer to by using words like 'helicopter' and 'fighter jet' and 'Lufthansa 747', etc. Oh certainly, he'll point out, there is a language game we play called 'morality. And so on.
Now, as I already explained several times, such anti-realism is logically indefeasible (strictu sensu), just as solipsism is. But we have no more reason for being anti-realists about morality à la the Three Amigos, J. L. Mackie, and sundry high school and college freshmen moral relativists, than we do for being anti-realists about matter à la Berkeley, or anti-realists about minds à la eliminative materialists, or anti-realists about other people à la solipsists, or anti-realists about aircraft à la someone who is off their rocker and regards aircraft not as aircraft but as some kind of weird supernatural 'latter days sign', along with UFOs, of the impending destruction of the Earth by the gods, whom we have angered by our Promethean hubris.
The bizzonkerist Amigos will never admit this atrocious and fundamental confusion of theirs, because the reality of objective morality has dire consequences for evolutionary materalism and the Amigos are blinded by their fanatical emotional attachment to that incoherent philosophy, and they too are off their rockers, and just, well, too plain stupid. But their confusion is very real and very objective all the same. As is morality. So best just to leave them to their bizzonkerist illusions. One can't reason with them.
As smarter atheists have understood, there's really no way out except via an error theory. But, error theories aren't just restricted to morality. They've been endemic in philosophy since the days of Locke , Berkeley, Hume. Thus the last named was an error theorist not just about morality, but about causation, inductive reasoning, and the self. Descartes was an error theorist about non-human animal consciousness. He thought that dogs, horses, etc experienced no pain, but were mere zombie machines, like very complex robots.
As I said, they're off their rockers.
Comment by stunney — November 3, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
keiths notes my change in attribution for an erroneous qualifier, edited prior to his post about the erroneous qualifier - a point he jumps on with both feet while ignoring the actual issue of his completely erroneous re-definition of the word "absolute." In the immediately preceding post I listed the definitions of BOTH words, along with all authoritatively listed synonyms.
Why did you try to re-define "objective" as "absolute," keiths? The words mean different things, are not synonymous, and everybody knows that but you. You could learn something here if you tried, but that's not why you're still digging, is it?
My hair still hurts, keiths. Your hole is approaching China.
Comment by Joy — November 3, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Mark Frank:
I agree that this line of discussion is not really germane. But I want to point out that it sounds like you are defining morality as"¦"¦
That which is good for my genes or is the result of unintended results of DNA mutations that have not been filtered by natural selection as of yet.
I'm not sure you can make a good case for why I should care what you think about morality if this is this is what you base it on. But it's your worldview not mine. Do you define the laws of logic and mathematics the same way?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 3, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Stunney emits a long string of his usual content-free insults, including this:
I really don't care very much about my level of comprehension of philosophy. I am interested in comprehending reality, and it appears to me (and many others) that comprehension of reality tends to be inversely correlated with comprehension of philosophy.
The substance of your reply to me is a mixture of strawmen, jargon, and bluster. Capped off with a perfectly retarded attempt to blame "atheistic evolution" for everything from the Nazis to postmodernism to the state of the environment.
None of that helps understand morality in the slightest. Morality is clearly an important cognitive function. Everybody makes moral judgements. You can do experiments to study how people do this, and find that they are not particularly rational or consistent, although they obey various rules. You can make speculative metapsychological theories of the function of morality like Freud or Minsky. You can become an anthropologist and study other cultures and find that their moral codes might be quite different from yours (that is in fact the historical roots of moral relativism). You can look for the evolutionary roots of morality in animal behavior. All of these are very interesting ways of studying morality objectively, that is, as a natural phenomenenon with a particular structure and function. But none of it gets you to "objective moral truths", because of that annoying and persistent gap between is and ought.
Comment by mtraven — November 3, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Steve Petermann asked:
Sure. Ultimately my morals are based on my subjective intuitions about right and wrong. That should be obvious, since I've been arguing for a thread and a half that objective morality either does not exist or is inaccessible to us.
That said, rigorous thinking definitely has a place in moral reasoning. Logic helps us determine whether our moral axioms are consistent with each other and whether potential actions conform to them. It also allows us to probe the far reaches of our morality to see if our axioms lead to absurdities, or if there are important areas of behavior that our axioms do not cover.
People are often not very rational in their moral thinking. For example, Jonathan Haidt has done some interesting research into the relationship between disgust and morality. He asks his research subjects what they think about scenarios like the following:
He has found that for many people, disgusting practices like boinking the dead chicken are construed as immoral, even though nobody is harmed by them.
Fascinating stuff, and good to keep in mind when evaluating the rationality of your own morality.
Steve continues:
Being rational about things doesn't mean treating every decision like a full-blown research study. Some decisions aren't important enough to merit intense analysis. In other cases, we may have already thought things through on another occasion and decide we don't want to reinvent the wheel (though it's smart on occasion to re-examine these "settled" issues).
I don't "demand" equally rigorous justification for all religious views, just as I don't for all moral views. Some are much more important than others. In Christianity, whether Jesus was the son of God is obviously pretty important to get right. The relative ages of the disciples? Not worth a lot of worry.
Second, as I said, moral axioms are ultimately and inevitably subjective, but for important moral decisions, we can and should use our skills to reason correctly from our axiomatic starting points.
Comment by keiths — November 3, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Joy's definition of objectivity:
Joy,
I exposed the absurdity of your definition here. Despite that, and despite the other humiliations you've inflicted on yourself in this thread, you seem to want more.
Okay.
My description of objective morality:
From the Wikipedia article on moral relativism:
From the Wikipedia article on moral absolutism:
Perfectly in line with my characterization of objective morality, and perfectly out of line with yours. (Not to mention that nobody on the thread has been willing to defend your bizarre definition of objectivity).
Are you happy yet?
Comment by keiths — November 3, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 2:46 am
fmm:
Not at all. You are still confusing the meaning of moral statements and the causes of moral behaviour. The definition of sweet is not "those tastes that evolved as an accidental result of our need for calories".
Analysing the meaning of moral statements like "theft is wrong" is germane to this discussion. One of the problems is that this sentence looks like "wrong" is referring to something. It has the same form as "the sky is blue" where blue does refer to a property of the sky. But this is deceptive. If you rephrase the sentence as "you ought not to steal" you can see it is more of an injunction or exhortation.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 4, 2007 @ 2:46 am
November 4th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Mark Frank:
I'm not confusing it at all I understand what you are saying really I do but it does not address at all why we should consider something as moral. The cause of a behavior is very important to the meaning.
Mtraven accidentally (I think) nailed it in probably the most profound statement I've read at TT
quote:
Just let that sink in for a while
What I need to know is what is the basis for your moral statements. what is it? and why should I care what you have to say about it.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 4, 2007 @ 9:53 am
November 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Keiths :
please compare these staments of yours:
:lol::lol::lol:
I hope you see the comedy
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 4, 2007 @ 10:05 am
November 4th, 2007 at 10:50 am
keiths said:
So keiths once again asserts his personal definition of "objective morality":
He still insists that "objective" and "absolute" are synonymous despite what linguists who parse the language for a living have to say about that.
keith quotes the World's Ultimate Authority [Wikipedia]:
This same suggestion has been made by others under the heading of "moral objectivism," which does equate objective with absolute. I am more of the opinion that an absolute - synonymous with words like unconditional, unqualified, fixed, unambiguous, undeniable and unquestionable - would harbor no situational exceptions or convenient justifications for violation. Everyone would act according to the law, automatically. FWIW.
On the other thread keiths asserted from his position of moral relativism that it would be "moral" to torture babies if God threatened to kill all of humanity if we didn't torture babies.
Just as with our current government's justification of torture, the justifications exist because our laws and negotiated international treaties define torture/rendition for torture as objectively immoral. The justifications are situational just like keiths' justification of baby torture, only with the government in the role of God.
Yet situational exemptions from the moral standard do not suddenly make torture moral. It merely exempts torturers from the prescribed punishments for violation of the objective moral standard. IOW, if George Bush's extension of exemption from the lawful standards to military and intelligence agencies made torture suddenly moral, it would apply to all of us and we could torture our family, friends and neighbors all we liked, having no 'ought not' in place.
Fortunately, enough of us believe strongly that torture is immoral no matter how you slice it that not only do we object to the government's convenient exceptions, we still consider the 'ought not' to be objectively imperative. And about as absolute as concepts get per human sociology, at this point in time.
If we were forced to torture, we wouldn't believe what we were doing was moral. Interestingly, military and CIA torturers don't believe it's suddenly moral either. Even if they like doing it and have been granted leave to engage in it without sanction.
Torture is still objectively immoral, we 'ought not' torture people. Doing it anyway doesn't change that. This actually agrees with keith's Wiki article per the definition of moral objectivism…
So why, I might ask myself, is keiths suddenly proving my point for me? Has he changed his mind to now accept that our codified moral standards are indeed objective?
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2007 @ 10:50 am
November 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
stunney, The Three Bizzceteers give me a new appreciation for the Psalmist's "fool". I've never seen such an utter lack of intellectual humility in people. Mtraven admits that philosophy is your area of expertise, and this subject is definately a philosophical issue, and yet he would rather imagine that you have made some elementary mistake in your reasoning, than to even remotely consider the possibility that he himself, just maybe, could be the one who is in over his head. It's like the dopes that come in here and accuse Joy of not knowing anything about Physics. They make a fool of themselves and then come back for more.
Comment by Brian Killian — November 4, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Mmf:
I have let it sink in. It is a beautifully succinct statement of the problem. I believe you are seeking an "is" that will lead to an "ought". I am not.
I have answered this question several times "“ but I cannot remember if it was in response to you "“ so I apologise if this is repetitive.
The basis for my moral statements is my reaction to people and events. For example, I do not like creatures to suffer so I agree with the assertion "cruelty to animals is wrong" which is equivalent to "people ought not to be cruel to animals".
Why should you care? Because you too are a human being and therefore almost certainly subject to feelings of compassion. Also, probably, like most human beings you care what others think of you. If I say "you ought not to be cruel to animals" I am pointing out that you may find it upsetting to be cruel to animals and also expressing my disapproval if you are cruel. Which addresses these two aspects of human nature.
Cheers
Comment by Mark Frank — November 4, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Brian, stunney is just a lowly amateur without even a PhD (=Doctor of Philosophy). In other words, absolutely no reason to believe him.
Comment by Raevmo — November 4, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I really think Joy is on our side.
Joy - I do find it hard to work out what you mean - but I get the strong impression that your view of morality is virtually the same as mine, raevmo, mtraven and keiths. In the end it depends on what the majority of people consider to be right or wrong. The only difference is that what you call objective we call subjective - but that's just semantics.
Welcome
Comment by Mark Frank — November 4, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Joy wrote:
Right. As if my "personal" definition of objective morality, which happens to be shared by moral philosophers everywhere, were somehow idiosyncratic, versus Joy's bizarre definition of objectivity, which I've already shown to be nonsensical, and which not a single participant in these threads has supported (apart from Joy herself).
No, I say that "objective morality" and "absolute morality" both refer to a standard that holds regardless of an individual's personal inclinations, cultural background, or genetic makeup.
Joy,
Are you claiming that the Wikipedia articles are wrong about moral objectivism? If so, let's see some evidence from the literature. If not, why the snide tone?
That almost sounded like a concession.
You should add that the "others" of whom you speak are those who think about this stuff for a living — moral philosophers.
It doesn't. If murder is absolutely wrong, it is wrong for Ellen, Wei Ming, Ahmad, Sunanda, Makena and Roderick — at home, abroad, at sea, in outer space — even if they're in a particularly bad mood.
Your mistake is in adding the following:
If murder is absolutely wrong, it doesn't mean that murder can't happen — it just means that when it does happen, it's absolutely wrong. Practically every moral absolutist believes that murder is wrong, but you won't find a single [sane] absolutist who believes that murder does not occur.
I'm quite a bit more careful than you are. Here's what I actually wrote:
Two choices. If you choose A, two babies will suffer horribly for an hour, and you will suffer horribly in witnessing their pain and knowing that you have chosen to make it happen. If you choose B, every sentient being in the universe will suffer worse agony and will die.
How you react to this scenario depends largely on where you fall on the deontology-vs.-consequentialism spectrum (see below).
That puts you in the odd position of saying that morality is sometimes good and sometimes bad, and immorality is sometimes good and sometimes bad. That morality should sometimes be rewarded, and sometimes punished, and immorality should sometimes be punished, and sometimes rewarded. No wonder you have a hard time with communication.
Most people take the more sensible approach of saying that the morality of an act is situational. For example, they would say that it's moral to kill someone who is about to kill your children, but it's not moral to kill someone because they drank the last Coke in the refrigerator when they knew that you wanted it.
What are you talking about? Even most wingnuts don't believe that something becomes moral just because the President decrees it.
Then you would presumably be more comfortable as a deontologist than a consequentialist.
Joy, do you really not understand that I can accept (and quote) the definition of moral objectivism without being a moral objectivist?
And, I should add, do you not understand that moral objectivists believe that something remains objectively moral, or immoral, whether it is codified or not? That it remains objectively moral even if it is codified as immoral, and vice-versa?
Comment by keiths — November 4, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Raevmo
If you were a Muslim you might say
The basis for my moral statements is my reaction to people and events. For example, I do not like women to be exploited so I agree with the assertion "Women's hair being seen in public is wrong" which is equivalent to "women ought not to be looked on as sex objects".
Why should you care? Because you too are a human being and therefore almost certainly subject to feelings of compassion. Also, probably, like most human beings you care what others think of you. If I say "Women's hair being seen in public is wrong" I am pointing out that you may find it upsetting for women to be looked on as as sex objects and also expressing my disapproval of those who do so. Which addresses these two aspects of human nature.
How does this sort of thing address whether it is moral to require the wearing of the hijab and why I should care what a Muslim Raevmo thinks?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 4, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
fmm - you got the wrong person - but you clearly mean't me.
It makes it clear that there is no objective way in which I am right and the Muslim is wrong. Therefore, if I want my morality to prevail (and I do) I need to somehow change their preferences (similarly they might seek to change my preferences). This is not to make it trivial. I care very much about the treatment of women in Muslim countries and I believe their attitude may well arise from mistaken (possibly religious) factual beliefs. But I recognise that I cannot prove that forcing the wearing of the hijab is wrong in the way that I can prove the Sun is further away than the moon. It is very significant. It means I don't regard them as stupid, evil or deceptive for having these beliefs.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 4, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
5mm:
You're responding to a post by keiths (edit: Mark Frank, sorry), not by me. But I'll bite anyway: the implication that you don't seem to care what other people think when you suspect that their morals were "objectively decreed" by the "wrong" sky-tyrant is rather amazing. I shudder to think what would happen if you received a sudden "revelation" that you must kill all read-haired people.
Comment by Raevmo — November 4, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Hey all,
Ive got to stop looking at the end of a post to see who wrote it
for a fun exercise try plugging in what a polygamist or a cannibal or a slave trader might say. I thing you'll find that with a little work they will all fit into Mark frank's stament. You can even make suicide bomber fit if you work at it.
It seems that your "basis" boils down to what you like. when it comes to morality I really don't care what your preferences are. I want to know what is moral.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 4, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
5mm wrote:
5mm,
What browser are you using? Wordpress displays the blogname of the commenter both at the beginning and the end of each comment.
Here's how your comment appears in my browser:
Comment by keiths — November 4, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
The stupidity of this is exceeded only by its arrogance. So anyone without a PhD has no credibility or only those whose names are spelled s-t-u-n-n-e-y?
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Interesting. Looks like Raevmo is not just an anti-realist about morality, but about doctorates and about my professional employment of 22 years too. Whatever next? Probably anti-realism about reality. Oh wait, now that I think about it, that's not next—he started with that.:lol:
Mark Frank wrote:
So, may I take it that regardless of the scientific facts, you don't think that evolutionary science ought to be included in UK secondary school syllabi, because you do not seek any "is" that will lead to an "ought"
And do you agree that if allowing brown-skinned South Asian immigrants to settle in Britain is intensely disliked by some Essex bovver boy, he might well agree with the assertion that "It's wrong to allow all these Pakis in, inntit?" which would be equivalent to "White people ought not to allow all these Pakis into our country"; and that if he said, "We ought to kick their fackin turban 'eads in," that would be as much a moral statement as any you might make?
The bovver boy might agree to an extent: "Oh yeah, I'm all for compassion 'n' 'at. I always 'elp old ladies across the street 'n' 'at. But not for those bloody Paki baahsstards. 'Ow about some compassion for us whites for a bloody change, eh?"
So if some disapprove of homosexual activity, or abortion, or socialized medicine, or freedom of religion, or of capital punishment for adulterers, or of allowing girls to go to school and women to vote, neither those views nor their opposites are objectively morally preferable in your opinion.
Comment by stunney — November 4, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I earlier wrote:
[Emphasis added]
The bolded word should have read 'aircraft talk'.
Comment by stunney — November 4, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Mark Frank:
The semantics is what we're arguing, is it not? I say that what the majority of people agree to codify per what's right or wrong makes our subjective percepts objective. That doesn't make them absolute, but it does give them some power against the dark side whenever it attempts to overturn things. As it does at least once in every generation.
I do not understand why you'd be surprised (in spite of keiths' kicking and screaming) that I agree with certain percepts of right and wrong that you harbor. In fact, I think you are more surprised to find yourself in agreement with me.
Why any of you would wish to demote this shared perceptual (empirical) base to mere semantics is also beyond me. Fewer than 17% of the population supports the current administration's redefinition of torture (including those authorized to engage in torture). And 10% of those would support anything they're told to support, without a single thought.
That's simply not enough to overrule the objective moral standard. Those who enjoy doing the torturing don't enjoy it because they think it's been made moral. Quite the opposite, to tell the truth.
They have license (until we take it away from them). They do not have absolution.
Next time your stereotypes try to take control of your mind, weigh the truth about this numbers game against one of the religious folk tales your stereotypes supposedly believe in - Satan himself had a 33% approval rating even as he was booted out of heaven.
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Bradford:
Sigh. Y'all shouldn't take everything so serious.
Comment by Raevmo — November 4, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Stunney asks Mark Frank:
Truth itself is not normative (I make the same point to Deuce here). We teach the truth not simply because it is true, but because we also believe, subjectively but by near consensus, that we ought to teach the truth.
If we thought that truth were harmful, we wouldn't teach it. Mike seems to have been hinting at something like this when he wrote the following:
As for your extended "bovver boy" example: if he sincerely believes, as a moral axiom, that it is wrong to allow "Pakis" into the country, how would you demonstrate, objectively, that he is wrong?
You seem to be having a lot of trouble with the idea that something that we consider wrong — something that we detest, that we refuse to tolerate, that we consider evil, that we wish to eradicate from the universe, that violates our deepest feelings about the way things should be, that we can't imagine could ever be considered acceptable by a sane person — nevertheless is not thereby objectively immoral.
The invitation still stands: pick a moral principle, and show us why it is objectively true.
Objectively? No. Subjectively? Of course.
Comment by keiths — November 4, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Mark Frank, to Joy:
Joy replied:
With you, yes. With others on the thread, no.
Joy pegs the needle on my irony meter whenever she begins a sentence that way.
Comment by keiths — November 4, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
You've said this to me a couple of times already and now to Bradford. Maybe if you don't seriously 'mean it', when you're in the middle of a debate, don't say it.
It's like mtraven's continuous comments about stunney's posts having no content. But he never really shows how stunney's posts lack content, he just says that it's the case. Despite the fact that when reading stunney's posts I am able to apprehend the point and do notice the content…. but as certain I am that I am reading actual content, I am certain that mtraven will make some off-handed comment about stunney's 'typical display of saying something without any content'.
Comment by Doug — November 4, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Stunney's posts aren't contentless, but it's fair to say that their content-to-length ratio is one of the lowest on the blog.
Comment by keiths — November 4, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Mark, Raevmo, mtraven —
Regarding these two threads: Doesn't it feel like we've been transported to the surface of some strange planet where, due to a local quirk in neuroanatomy, the inhabitants find the subjective/objective distinction to be as arcane as string theory is on Earth?
Comment by keiths — November 4, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
keiths said:
Au, contraire. You indeed DID say that "absolute" is synonymous with "objective." Your post is still there, as is mine citing the actual synonyms of both words, which do not overlap.
LOL!!! Oh, Wiki's got some fair stuff on it (when it's not being anonymously re-written by juvenile delinquents), but it's not exactly an unimpeachable authority. Considering it's anonymously written and can be edited by juvenile delinquents. I thought everybody knew that, keiths. Always get a second opinion from a real expert
Did you forget I was the one who posted the definitions and list of synonyms showing that "absolute" and "objective" are NOT the same concept and are NOT synonymous? Oh, yeah… you did forget. Otherwise you wouldn't have denied you claimed they ARE synonymous.
What in the world would make you think I believe that murder is "absolutely" wrong? I don't recall asserting such a thing. I do believe it's "objectively" wrong. But I assure you that I know I'd kill if I had to, and worry about judgment or atonement later. If it were "absolute" I wouldn't know that about myself, would I?
You quote yourself:
Torturing babies as both "moral" and "heroic" in your extreme circumstances. I call bullshit. It might be the only thing to do for survival's sake (if survival is that important to you), but it wouldn't be "moral" and it wouldn't be "heroic." It would be just as immoral as it ever was.
Honestly, such tortured self-justifications are precisely why humans get so confused so often and fall so readily into blatant bestiality. That's regress, not progress. But maybe it's just the beast in you (whom you have not yet come to terms with) talking. Must be like living with a dual personality.
Per your ridiculous scenario, I'd choose a sweet evening tea of mountain laurel (abundant outside my door) with fond embrace of the children you'd torture if you could get hold of them, whisperings of "I Love You" - more than life itself. If God will destroy us all unless we become beasts (and believe it "moral" and "heroic") I'd have no reason at all to stick around these parts or subject my children to it.
Thanks for the concession. Those who actually do believe this - and yes, there are some - also believe the President speaks for God. Go figure.
Of course I do, keiths. You're the one who would "morally" and "heroically" torture babies to save your own sorry skin. That's not just situational, it's a beast begging to be unchained.
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Keiths,
I'm not sure what kind of proof you are looking for.
If you don't mind first pick one logical principle and show us why it's objectively true. That way I can understand what kind of proof you are looking for since you are not impressed with what I've come up with so far.
If you contend that logical principles are subjective please prove that contention objectively.
Thanks
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 4, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
keiths, it's true that the realist idea of the objective/subjective distinction is not quite as simple as: "scientific facts are objective; everything else is subjective — especially religion and morals." But, at least it has the advantage of being consistent.
Comment by Brian Killian — November 4, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
keiths:
You mean a local quirk in the soul, right? Speaking of strange planets, could it be objectively moral for an alien species of far superior intellect to exterminate humanity in order to use earth as a greenhouse to cultivate magic mushrooms?
Comment by Raevmo — November 4, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
It is certainly a strange experience, but kind of fascinating.
Stunney. I am not getting into any more discussion of the content with you - I can't take the insults - but I am intrigued by your professional employment of 22 years. What do you do? Are you as aggressive in you professional life as you are here?
Comment by Mark Frank — November 4, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Raevmo
Let me get this strait it looks like Raevmo is on our side and Joy is with the bad guys on this subject.
Talk about strange planets.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 4, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Brian Killian wrote:
It is very funny to hear myself described as lacking intellectual humility in a context that includes stunney, who is absolutely convinced that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.
As for considering the possibility that I am wrong, in past debates with stunney I've explicitly acknowledged that maybe I'm just missing something unutterably profound in the philosophical issue at hand (in that case it was Kripke's proof that all horses are white or something like that) and invited stunney, as a professional philosopher and teacher, to explain the issue in terms that an ordinary intelligent person would understand, in other words to ground out the philsophical jargon in something meaningful. It hasn't happened yet. Instead I got restatements of the same argument over and over, together with insult, bluster, and the argument from prominence (Kripke must be right because he's famous and I'm a nobody).
In the case now at hand, the debate just seems stupid, a series of pointless word games, like so much philosophical discourse. Both keiths and I have pointed to work that looks at the actual structure and function of moral cognition, work which actually promises to teach us something new about how minds work and how morality works. Contrast that with this philosophical debate about whether morality is objective or not, which is like a car stuck in the mud, spinning its wheels endlessly, back and forth, getting nowhere. Instead of making progress, we regress to arguing about what "objective" means.
Hey, that's an apt metaphor, now that I think about it. Philosophy has very little traction on reality, as compared with the natural sciences. It's like a staid sedan, fine for driving on the nice paved road of everyday life but inadequate for plunging off the beaten path. The natural world is complex, it contains phenomena at scales of time and space that we can barely fathom, and has some deeply counterintuitive properties if you dive in far enough. To explore it, you need the off-road vehicle of science.
Comment by mtraven — November 4, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
mtraven wrote:
Yes. I hope that new research on the biology, evolutionary history, and cognitive structure of morality will energize the field of moral philosophy, just as neuroscience has awakened the philosophy of mind from its doldrums.
Comment by keiths — November 4, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
fifth monarchy man:
How so, fmm? [bats eyes innocently, tries to hide the half-smile with her hand]
Positively head-spinning, isn't it? §;o)
mtraven:
I don't recall you or keiths pointing to work that looks at the actual structure and function of moral cognition. Why, I don't recall ever seeing the announcement that science had quantified the actual structure and function of moral cognition in the first place! Must have been in that other thread that was too long for me to follow. This could be exciting… Could you re-post those links for me? Thanks.
Oh, I consider philosophy to be a lot like forensic debate. Which leads to law school, and we all know that lawyers have no souls. That may be true of scientists as well. What need has science for a philosophy to guide its understandings - of its own intelligently designed FAPP goals or its limitations, eh?
Some people just like to argue. That's why they invented the internet.
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Doug:
Certain words and phrases can be counted on from specific individuals. mtraven has the patent on stunney's posts lacking content, PvM is dependable for mentioning vacuous at least once during a conversation about ID and materialist critics of ID are sure to throw in the word magic when critiquing their opponents' views.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Joy wrote:
I am married to a lawyer. I can attest that indeed this is absolutely true.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 4, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Joy wrote:
Odd that you would refer to my comment without quoting it. I wonder why. Does it have something to do with the fact that the comment shows that I was talking about absolute morality and objective morality, not 'absolute' and 'objective' in isolation?
Here it is (emphasis mine):