|
On July 30 2013 16:49 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 02:21 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is that you are all searching for a definition of "man" that is not supposed to be up to controversy - so you need something to define this man. See your sentence "Given some contingent facts about human beings and some necessary truths about rational agent interaction allowing torturing babies for fun as a general rule will not lead to a flourishing society" : you considers that there are contingent "facts" about human beings (the use of contingent is obviously really problematic because you admit that you can't define man always and everywhere),
I am not really sure what to make of this paragraph. I can only hope you wrote this because you are confused about the meaning of contingent, because none of your conclusions seem to follow. It is a contingent physiological fact that human beings usually have two hands and ten fingers, in the sense that it does not seem logically necessary that we have two hands and ten fingers. The natural sciences are full of contingent facts, but that does not compromise any of the conclusions physicists derive. It is further not at all necessary to be able to describe "one unchanging human nature" for moral realism. What makes you think that? Human beings are complex physical systems, so obviously there will be lots of variety in their reactions.
Then give me contingent facts about human nature that would make it possible for you to rationally critic a moral statement everything equal. How can you rationaly prove me that the fact that we have two hands and ten fingers means anything from a moral stand point.
But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter.
And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by.
The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad.
Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason.
Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled.
You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy.
Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right" (unfalsifiable) but that I don't have the knowledge to falsify them. "Human nature" is unfalsifiable (I can find thousands exemples in our history that any definition of "human nature" is wrong, but it doesn't make it wrong).
A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ?
|
On July 30 2013 19:59 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 18:42 Spekulatius wrote:
@ Lixler:
I think I expressed myself badly in my last post. Of course I do agree with you that dying does not remove a moral system. But this does not in any way mean a moral system is like a law of physics.
You say, moral systems survive their "thinker" just as laws of physics do - I disagree.
You say, a physical system of person X needs to be included in the equation the same way the moral system of person X needs to be included in its respective equation - I disagree.
I tried to compare morals to beauty as I believe they are comparable. And I very strongly believe that if you remove a critical beholder from the equation, the notion of beauty stops to make sense. What is beauty if there is nobody who is appreciating it, rating it or feeling it? Nothing. A notion without content.
I very strongly believe the exact same statement holds true for moral systems. Morals are a human invention. Without humans, nobody would ever think about calling something right or wrong. It is completely implausible to me how there should be any universal statement that is not contingent on a beholder.
ObviousOne phrased it much more bluntly: The universe does not care if something is right or wrong. This means a) that only caring about morality produces moral systems which means it's contingent on the human mind. And b) laws of physics are not relative to the beholder, they do not change depending on who's watching/rating/analyzing.
@ Acrofales:
No. You're not getting the fundamental point I'm trying to make.
Universal truths cannot be discovered (as you claim) because
1. there are no universal truths (see above)
2. if there were universal moral truths, they would not be discoverable because they would not be part of the world outside of your mind. Morals have no anchor in the real world. You would not be able to discover moral truths just as you would not be able to "discover" that you are feeling tired, hungry or alone. The word "discover" does not make any sense in this context.
Again, moral "truths" are fundamentally different from laws of nature. Moral systems are like feelings which are - you agree, I suppose - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions of beauty - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions on taste - check our KMD thread: not universal.
I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself though. I am sorry to interfere, but I find this line of reasoning utterly unconvincing. That moral systems require moral agents and that moral theory is only applicable if moral agents exist is a trivial truism, just like the laws of nature would not be applicable if nature would not exist or like geology would not make sense to anyone if planets had not formed. It might be an interesting exercise to investigate in what respect statements could nonetheless be said to be true if none of the objects in the statement had ever obtained existence, but I fail to see how this is in any way special for morality. I am a realist about psychology for instance, in that I think that psychology as a science can generate true statements about the human psyche and human behavior. Would you agree? If yes, why are you not moved by the argument that without any human, no one could make any sense of psychology. If you disagree, what do you think it is that psychologists are doing?
I disagree.
Geology is still right even if planets ceased to exist. There's just nothing to talk about anymore.
Psychology is still right even if all humans ceased to exist. There's just nobody to talk about anymore.
Moral statements are still neither right nor wrong in the absence of humans because they don't have the capacity to be either right or wrong because they're relative statements.
Stop comparing laws of nature and moral statements. They're fundamentally different.
If you can prove that something is objectively beautiful, I will completely submit to your theory that there can be moral absolutes. Until then, no argument containing laws of nature will have anything to do with moral relativity or absolutism, I'm sorry.
On July 30 2013 20:03 gneGne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 19:40 Spekulatius wrote:On July 30 2013 19:24 xM(Z wrote:On July 30 2013 18:42 Spekulatius wrote:
@ Lixler:
I think I expressed myself badly in my last post. Of course I do agree with you that dying does not remove a moral system. But this does not in any way mean a moral system is like a law of physics.
You say, moral systems survive their "thinker" just as laws of physics do - I disagree.
You say, a physical system of person X needs to be included in the equation the same way the moral system of person X needs to be included in its respective equation - I disagree.
I tried to compare morals to beauty as I believe they are comparable. And I very strongly believe that if you remove a critical beholder from the equation, the notion of beauty stops to make sense. What is beauty if there is nobody who is appreciating it, rating it or feeling it? Nothing. A notion without content.
I very strongly believe the exact same statement holds true for moral systems. Morals are a human invention. Without humans, nobody would ever think about calling something right or wrong. It is completely implausible to me how there should be any universal statement that is not contingent on a beholder.
ObviousOne phrased it much more bluntly: The universe does not care if something is right or wrong. This means a) that only caring about morality produces moral systems which means it's contingent on the human mind. And b) laws of physics are not relative to the beholder, they do not change depending on who's watching/rating/analyzing.
@ Acrofales:
No. You're not getting the fundamental point I'm trying to make.
Universal truths cannot be discovered (as you claim) because
1. there are no universal truths (see above)
2. if there were universal moral truths, they would not be discoverable because they would not be part of the world outside of your mind. Morals have no anchor in the real world. You would not be able to discover moral truths just as you would not be able to "discover" that you are feeling tired, hungry or alone. The word "discover" does not make any sense in this context.
Again, moral "truths" are fundamentally different from laws of nature. Moral systems are like feelings which are - you agree, I suppose - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions of beauty - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions on taste - check our KMD thread: not universal.
I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself though. .. and if i were to say: universal laws are an invention of the universe?, your arguments would turn into a subordinate functionary of some sorts. "The universe" is not an entity capable of inventing stuff. On July 30 2013 19:36 gneGne wrote:On July 30 2013 19:14 Spekulatius wrote:On July 30 2013 19:01 gneGne wrote:
How is it that man apparently understands natures laws themselves, yet has no clue about the laws that govern its own actions. Huh? We are far from understanding nature completely. Questions of quantum mechanics, dark matter and all that stuff remain to be answered universally and in a satisfying way. Not to mention the questions physicians haven't even discovered yet. The laws that govern our own actions can reasonably be explained by evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. It's tough in the details, but not in the fundamentals. Our level of understand in both subjects is not as far different as you might think. If anything, it's the other way around. Well, if you admit that science leaves many questions unanswered, then it means we should also not be so bold to 'explain away' our own actions with said science that leaves us only with estimations on the causes and effects of certain phenomena that go with our actions.Thus we can only explain phenomena in retrospect through hypotheses, but we don't do so or think that way like 'What made me act such and so a few seconds ago?', no we make practical judgments in the moment here instead of theoretical judgments. I don't know what you're saying exactly or how this relates to the metaethics discussion. And if I understand you right, then I disagree. We can explain our process of judgment to a certain extent. We can look at it in retrospect and say "well ok this is why I acted this way". Where do you get that we don't exactly do that? Ok you are right that we do indeed explain away alot of our actions, like 'I was hungry and tired and thus..' but the peculiar thing is that we don't accept these explanations or 'excuses' in certain moral situations and thus we can regret the choices/actions we've made and take responsibility for.
Humans don't accept a lot. It's in our nature.
This does not mean it's right or wrong.
And responsibility is a fiction that is needed for modern societies to function properly. It is in no way true or not. But that is a completely different topic.
|
On July 30 2013 19:58 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 19:54 xM(Z wrote:"The universe" is not an entity capable of inventing stuff. what a narrow minded thing to say  hey man!, i remember the times when you were an amoeba and couldn't figure out what shape is ... You must be talking about my ancestors as I have always been human. But that put aside: so what?
now use that backwards reasoning, forwards. you will be the ancestor of ... (until you get to "as i have always been the universe")?.
it's fun
|
On July 30 2013 20:22 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 19:58 Spekulatius wrote:On July 30 2013 19:54 xM(Z wrote:"The universe" is not an entity capable of inventing stuff. what a narrow minded thing to say hey man!, i remember the times when you were an amoeba and couldn't figure out what shape is ... You must be talking about my ancestors as I have always been human. But that put aside: so what? now use that backwards reasoning, forwards. you will be the ancestor of ... (until you get to "as i have always been the universe")?. it's fun
I still don't know what that's supposed to hint at.
I was once nonexistent. So?
|
It seems that moral realists have taken up the role of apologetics in this thread, while those inclined towards other standpoints have taken the seat of critics... which is fairly natural, given that us realists obviously make the strongest claims towards the subject. Just to be candid about it, realist claims are far from bulletproof, and I'm fairly sure that all of us arguing in favor of moral realism are quite aware of that (the last philosopher who really thought that moral realism was bulletproof has probably been tarred and feather by Plato personally).
Nevertheless, I would like to turn the tables for once and criticize the critics... since we're all into Starcraft here, I probably don't have to explain why offense is the best defense. 
Much of the criticism against moral realism comes down to the observation that there are fundamental epistemic differences between propositions on "what is" and propositions on "what should be". For instance, physics can confirm applicability of its theories by experiments, while ethics have to do without because 'freedom does not follow from factum' (Jacobi). That said, these methodological differences are not entirely parallel to the theoretical difference between 'descriptive' and 'normative' theories: Mathematics and logic work remarkably well in axiom systems that don't rely on empirical evidence. Moreover, the validity and certainty of confirmations that are considered sufficient empirical proof varies remarkably among the different 'scientific' disciplines; for example, even in a best-case scenario, the experiments conducted in cosmology or social sciences are only in simulacrum.
What irks me about the discussion is that I don't really understand what kind of certainty the anti-realists expect from ethical statements. Many of the counterarguments come down to systemic doubt (rather than factual doubt) along the lines of "but it could be wrong"... a radical skepticism that can be applied to any theory (question for the first principle or Münchhausen-trilemma) including itself. Apparently, even the use of freak cases (nothing less than alien lifeforms!) is considered a legitimate argument to disproof ethics... but the same rationale is not applied to descriptive sciences.
For example, in the post above, xM(Z argues that "an alien will be able to understand the cause and effect of newtonian laws/mechanics but it might never understand human morals". I find that hard to believe (and impossible to prove, given that the premise is counterfactual). Newtonian mechanics cannot comprehend the perihelion movement of Merkur. Without theory of relativity (light being subject to gravity), we have no explanation for why it gets dark at night. Newton provides no means to explain photoelectric effects. So why would an alien be able to comprehend our erroneous physics but not our erroneous morals? Wouldn't it need intricate knowledge of the functioning and misfunctioning of the human mind for both?
To get back to the point: What kind of certainty do people expect from normative theories, and why don't they apply the same strictness to descriptive theories? If medicine runs clinical trials to test a new drug, we deem statistical certainty sufficient to put people's lifes on the line (considering a drug 'safe for use' despite the fact that we're tacitly accepting that one in a million patients will be the freak case that gets a brain aneurysm... hell, that might not even be a prescription drug with such little of a risk of an adverse effect). And the demands for certainty in this field of research still beat the certainty of theoretical constructs in economics, politology, psychology, and sociology, which we base the future of entire nations on. In short, what is so specifically unacceptable about the r-square of the Categorical imperative? Why do you deem the primum non nocere less certain than classical mechanics?
Moreover, what makes you think that the anti-realist interpretation is more believable? Over the course of human history, people from all over the world have independently come to the insight that lying is kind of a dick move. Admittedly, most people who aren't Kant would tacitly accept exceptions to this rule (the emphasis lies on 'rule' and 'exeptions'). What do we make of this 'trend'? Do we deem it circumstantial and arbitrary? Where does the regularity come from? Is it caused by millions of billions of particular similarities? Isn't that - by the law of parsimony - actually less scientific than the assumption of a universal principle - one that is intersubjectively comprehensible by human intelligence - that guides this thought? More importantly, if we give up the idea that the distinction truth/false always has one prefered and one disfavored side, don't we undermine any cognitive reasoning whatsoever?
|
On July 30 2013 20:09 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter. And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by. The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad. Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason. Show nested quote +Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled. You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy. Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right". A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ?
Why do you say that we cannot evaluate morals according to some standard and decide which ones are better? I'd argue that we can, and in fact do. That utilitarianism has lots of problems doesn't mean there isn't some way of measuring how well a norm works... just that the field of experimental ethics is very immature and lacks a proper methodology.
You claim experimentation is needed, but it really isn't. Cosmologists don't experiment, they form a hypothesis and evaluate its predictions by observing the cosmos... not a controlled experiment. Yet cosmology is probably one of the fiellds that has the best claim to be working towards finding truths about the universe,
Only thing I agree with you is that we can never know for sure whether what we have found is a truth or not, but that goes for all statements and not just moral ones.
|
I'm off to class btw. Don't hurry to respond to me.
|
On July 30 2013 20:18 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 19:59 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 18:42 Spekulatius wrote:
@ Lixler:
I think I expressed myself badly in my last post. Of course I do agree with you that dying does not remove a moral system. But this does not in any way mean a moral system is like a law of physics.
You say, moral systems survive their "thinker" just as laws of physics do - I disagree.
You say, a physical system of person X needs to be included in the equation the same way the moral system of person X needs to be included in its respective equation - I disagree.
I tried to compare morals to beauty as I believe they are comparable. And I very strongly believe that if you remove a critical beholder from the equation, the notion of beauty stops to make sense. What is beauty if there is nobody who is appreciating it, rating it or feeling it? Nothing. A notion without content.
I very strongly believe the exact same statement holds true for moral systems. Morals are a human invention. Without humans, nobody would ever think about calling something right or wrong. It is completely implausible to me how there should be any universal statement that is not contingent on a beholder.
ObviousOne phrased it much more bluntly: The universe does not care if something is right or wrong. This means a) that only caring about morality produces moral systems which means it's contingent on the human mind. And b) laws of physics are not relative to the beholder, they do not change depending on who's watching/rating/analyzing.
@ Acrofales:
No. You're not getting the fundamental point I'm trying to make.
Universal truths cannot be discovered (as you claim) because
1. there are no universal truths (see above)
2. if there were universal moral truths, they would not be discoverable because they would not be part of the world outside of your mind. Morals have no anchor in the real world. You would not be able to discover moral truths just as you would not be able to "discover" that you are feeling tired, hungry or alone. The word "discover" does not make any sense in this context.
Again, moral "truths" are fundamentally different from laws of nature. Moral systems are like feelings which are - you agree, I suppose - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions of beauty - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions on taste - check our KMD thread: not universal.
I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself though. I am sorry to interfere, but I find this line of reasoning utterly unconvincing. That moral systems require moral agents and that moral theory is only applicable if moral agents exist is a trivial truism, just like the laws of nature would not be applicable if nature would not exist or like geology would not make sense to anyone if planets had not formed. It might be an interesting exercise to investigate in what respect statements could nonetheless be said to be true if none of the objects in the statement had ever obtained existence, but I fail to see how this is in any way special for morality. I am a realist about psychology for instance, in that I think that psychology as a science can generate true statements about the human psyche and human behavior. Would you agree? If yes, why are you not moved by the argument that without any human, no one could make any sense of psychology. If you disagree, what do you think it is that psychologists are doing? I disagree. Geology is still right even if planets ceased to exist. There's just nothing to talk about anymore. Psychology is still right even if all humans ceased to exist. There's just nobody to talk about anymore. Moral statements are still neither right nor wrong in the absence of humans because they don't have the capacity to be either right or wrong because they're relative statements. Stop comparing laws of nature and moral statements. They're fundamentally different. If you can prove that something is objectively beautiful, I will completely submit to your theory that there can be moral absolutes. Until then, no argument containing laws of nature will have anything to do with moral relativity or absolutism, I'm sorry. Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 20:03 gneGne wrote:On July 30 2013 19:40 Spekulatius wrote:On July 30 2013 19:24 xM(Z wrote:On July 30 2013 18:42 Spekulatius wrote:
@ Lixler:
I think I expressed myself badly in my last post. Of course I do agree with you that dying does not remove a moral system. But this does not in any way mean a moral system is like a law of physics.
You say, moral systems survive their "thinker" just as laws of physics do - I disagree.
You say, a physical system of person X needs to be included in the equation the same way the moral system of person X needs to be included in its respective equation - I disagree.
I tried to compare morals to beauty as I believe they are comparable. And I very strongly believe that if you remove a critical beholder from the equation, the notion of beauty stops to make sense. What is beauty if there is nobody who is appreciating it, rating it or feeling it? Nothing. A notion without content.
I very strongly believe the exact same statement holds true for moral systems. Morals are a human invention. Without humans, nobody would ever think about calling something right or wrong. It is completely implausible to me how there should be any universal statement that is not contingent on a beholder.
ObviousOne phrased it much more bluntly: The universe does not care if something is right or wrong. This means a) that only caring about morality produces moral systems which means it's contingent on the human mind. And b) laws of physics are not relative to the beholder, they do not change depending on who's watching/rating/analyzing.
@ Acrofales:
No. You're not getting the fundamental point I'm trying to make.
Universal truths cannot be discovered (as you claim) because
1. there are no universal truths (see above)
2. if there were universal moral truths, they would not be discoverable because they would not be part of the world outside of your mind. Morals have no anchor in the real world. You would not be able to discover moral truths just as you would not be able to "discover" that you are feeling tired, hungry or alone. The word "discover" does not make any sense in this context.
Again, moral "truths" are fundamentally different from laws of nature. Moral systems are like feelings which are - you agree, I suppose - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions of beauty - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions on taste - check our KMD thread: not universal.
I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself though. .. and if i were to say: universal laws are an invention of the universe?, your arguments would turn into a subordinate functionary of some sorts. "The universe" is not an entity capable of inventing stuff. On July 30 2013 19:36 gneGne wrote:On July 30 2013 19:14 Spekulatius wrote:On July 30 2013 19:01 gneGne wrote:
How is it that man apparently understands natures laws themselves, yet has no clue about the laws that govern its own actions. Huh? We are far from understanding nature completely. Questions of quantum mechanics, dark matter and all that stuff remain to be answered universally and in a satisfying way. Not to mention the questions physicians haven't even discovered yet. The laws that govern our own actions can reasonably be explained by evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. It's tough in the details, but not in the fundamentals. Our level of understand in both subjects is not as far different as you might think. If anything, it's the other way around. Well, if you admit that science leaves many questions unanswered, then it means we should also not be so bold to 'explain away' our own actions with said science that leaves us only with estimations on the causes and effects of certain phenomena that go with our actions.Thus we can only explain phenomena in retrospect through hypotheses, but we don't do so or think that way like 'What made me act such and so a few seconds ago?', no we make practical judgments in the moment here instead of theoretical judgments. I don't know what you're saying exactly or how this relates to the metaethics discussion. And if I understand you right, then I disagree. We can explain our process of judgment to a certain extent. We can look at it in retrospect and say "well ok this is why I acted this way". Where do you get that we don't exactly do that? Ok you are right that we do indeed explain away alot of our actions, like 'I was hungry and tired and thus..' but the peculiar thing is that we don't accept these explanations or 'excuses' in certain moral situations and thus we can regret the choices/actions we've made and take responsibility for. Humans don't accept a lot. It's in our nature. This does not mean it's right or wrong. And responsibility is a fiction that is needed for modern societies to function properly. It is in no way true or not. But that is a completely different topic.
Yes ofcourse I would never say that that unacceptance is always by definition justified, nonetheless they imply a reflection on right and wrong and I personally believe that these reflections on what is supposed to be right and wrong are deeply rooted in how societies are shaped and formed.
|
For example, in the post above, xM(Z argues that "an alien will be able to understand the cause and effect of newtonian laws/mechanics but it might never understand human morals". I find that hard to believe (and impossible to prove, given that the premise is counterfactual). Newtonian mechanics cannot comprehend the perihelion movement of Merkur. Without theory of relativity (light being subject to gravity), we have no explanation for why it gets dark at night. Newton provides no means to explain photoelectric effects. So why would an alien be able to comprehend our erroneous physics but not our erroneous morals? Wouldn't it need intricate knowledge of the functioning and misfunctioning of the human mind for both? .
that was a little out of context i fear. the newtonian perspective was the assertion i had to work with given that it was previously posted. i made no claims about the objective truth of newtonian physics.
to generalize, physicalism is self explanatory, moralism needs to be explained then taken at face value.
|
On July 30 2013 20:09 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 16:49 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 02:21 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is that you are all searching for a definition of "man" that is not supposed to be up to controversy - so you need something to define this man. See your sentence "Given some contingent facts about human beings and some necessary truths about rational agent interaction allowing torturing babies for fun as a general rule will not lead to a flourishing society" : you considers that there are contingent "facts" about human beings (the use of contingent is obviously really problematic because you admit that you can't define man always and everywhere),
I am not really sure what to make of this paragraph. I can only hope you wrote this because you are confused about the meaning of contingent, because none of your conclusions seem to follow. It is a contingent physiological fact that human beings usually have two hands and ten fingers, in the sense that it does not seem logically necessary that we have two hands and ten fingers. The natural sciences are full of contingent facts, but that does not compromise any of the conclusions physicists derive. It is further not at all necessary to be able to describe "one unchanging human nature" for moral realism. What makes you think that? Human beings are complex physical systems, so obviously there will be lots of variety in their reactions. Then give me contingent facts about human nature that would make it possible for you to rationally critic a moral statement everything equal. How can you rationaly prove me that the fact that we have two hands and ten fingers means anything from a moral stand point. Show nested quote +But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter. And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by. The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad. Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason. Show nested quote +Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled. You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy. Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right" (unfalsifiable) but that I don't have the knowledge to falsify them. "Human nature" is unfalsifiable (I can find thousands exemples in our history that any definition of "human nature" is wrong, but it doesn't make it wrong). A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ?
Your post seems so confused to me that I am afraid that we might be too far apart to communicate with each other meaningfully. I provided you with a contingent fact about human beings that relates to morals: "human beings can suffer". Do I get it right that you think this is a fact, but that it does not relate to morality?
If you really do think that the effect of an action on a human beings health cannot be evaluated, then do you also think that nobody could ever really be said to have killed somebody? Or that a meaningful defense against the accusation of killing somebody would be that one did not take the sociological or political context into account sufficiently? Because this view sure sounds rather eccentric to me.
I further do not see how I mix up reasoning and science. You were bringing in the notion of irrefutable proof. Can you provide me with a scientific statement that is proven irrefutably?
Finally, if you are an anti-realist about any of the special sciences then I am not surprised that you are an anti-realist about morality. I would be completely happy to conclude that some statements of morality are as truth-apt as some statements in psychology, economics or medicine and I am a realist about all of them.
|
On July 30 2013 20:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 20:09 WhiteDog wrote:But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter. And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by. The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad. Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason. Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled. You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy. Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right". A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ? Why do you say that we cannot evaluate morals according to some standard and decide which ones are better? I'd argue that we can, and in fact do. That utilitarianism has lots of problems doesn't mean there isn't some way of measuring how well a norm works... just that the field of experimental ethics is very immature and lacks a proper methodology.
How can you define the "some standard" ? That's my point, there are no standard that are not up to controversy.
Because that standard doesn't exist, one moral will always be better than another in a specific context.
For exemple, evaluate what is more moral between "Killing is right" and "Killing is wrong". The only answers you can give for sure is : in some context, killing is right, is some others, killing is wrong. It is right to kill in war, it is wrong to kill your neighbour because he pissed in your garden, etc.
You claim experimentation is needed, but it really isn't. Cosmologists don't experiment, they form a hypothesis and evaluate its predictions by observing the cosmos... not a controlled experiment. Yet cosmology is probably one of the fiellds that has the best claim to be working towards finding truths about the universe,
When I say experimentation or "test", I don't necessarily mean controlled environment. In economy they also make experimentation (experience of randomization like in medicine) : they "test" the effect of a specific economical program on an area (say they add computer in schools in Zimbabwe) then they evaluate the effect of the change.
My point is, they can't say for sure that what happened in Zimbabwe in 2013 will also exactly happen in Zimbabwe in 2014 or in China in 2013 - I can't entirely separate my conclusions from the context. In cosmology if what I've seen in 2013 does not work in 2014, you have to change your model (because it is wrong). In economy, the same happen, your model is not strictly "wrong", it is not adapted to the situation at hand.
On July 30 2013 20:45 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 20:09 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2013 16:49 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 02:21 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is that you are all searching for a definition of "man" that is not supposed to be up to controversy - so you need something to define this man. See your sentence "Given some contingent facts about human beings and some necessary truths about rational agent interaction allowing torturing babies for fun as a general rule will not lead to a flourishing society" : you considers that there are contingent "facts" about human beings (the use of contingent is obviously really problematic because you admit that you can't define man always and everywhere),
I am not really sure what to make of this paragraph. I can only hope you wrote this because you are confused about the meaning of contingent, because none of your conclusions seem to follow. It is a contingent physiological fact that human beings usually have two hands and ten fingers, in the sense that it does not seem logically necessary that we have two hands and ten fingers. The natural sciences are full of contingent facts, but that does not compromise any of the conclusions physicists derive. It is further not at all necessary to be able to describe "one unchanging human nature" for moral realism. What makes you think that? Human beings are complex physical systems, so obviously there will be lots of variety in their reactions. Then give me contingent facts about human nature that would make it possible for you to rationally critic a moral statement everything equal. How can you rationaly prove me that the fact that we have two hands and ten fingers means anything from a moral stand point. But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter. And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by. The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad. Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason. Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled. You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy. Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right" (unfalsifiable) but that I don't have the knowledge to falsify them. "Human nature" is unfalsifiable (I can find thousands exemples in our history that any definition of "human nature" is wrong, but it doesn't make it wrong). A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ? Your post seems so confused to me that I am afraid that we might be too far apart to communicate with each other meaningfully. I provided you with a contingent fact about human beings that relates to morals: "human beings can suffer". Do I get it right that you think this is a fact, but that it does not relate to morality? If you really do think that the effect of an action on a human beings health cannot be evaluated, then do you also think that nobody could ever really be said to have killed somebody? Or that a meaningful defense against the accusation of killing somebody would be that one did not take the sociological or political context into account sufficiently? Because this view sure sounds rather eccentric to me.
Do you understand what everything equal means ? The effect of an action on human beings health CAN be evaluated, but NOT everything equals. I can evaluate that dying of hearth attack at the age of 40 is a bad thing. I cannot strictly, always and everywhere, says that dying is a bad thing - for exemple, is it morally right to die for others ?
Finally, if you are an anti-realist about any of the special sciences then I am not surprised that you are an anti-realist about morality. I would be completely happy to conclude that some statements of morality are as truth-apt as some statements in psychology, economics or medicine and I am a realist about all of them.
I don't consider that everything that comes out of the "special sciences" is "always" relative or defined by one's point of view. I'm just not a positivist. I know their limits, and their qualities.
There is a reason why most economist could not predict the economic crisis, or that no social scientist can really predict with a 100% certainty what someone will buy if you give him 300 dollars despite the fact that we know a lot about how people consume and why they do so. There are "true statements" in science outside of laws, but I cannot applicate those true statement as laws - which is my main problem with moral realism as I understands it.
|
On July 30 2013 20:25 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 20:22 xM(Z wrote:On July 30 2013 19:58 Spekulatius wrote:On July 30 2013 19:54 xM(Z wrote:"The universe" is not an entity capable of inventing stuff. what a narrow minded thing to say hey man!, i remember the times when you were an amoeba and couldn't figure out what shape is ... You must be talking about my ancestors as I have always been human. But that put aside: so what? now use that backwards reasoning, forwards. you will be the ancestor of ... (until you get to "as i have always been the universe")?. it's fun I still don't know what that's supposed to hint at. I was once nonexistent. So?
you need continuity in your argument, continuity that goes to infinity and back. upward and downward theoretical (at least) continuity.
assertions like "The universe" is not an entity capable of inventing stuff can not be proved nor disproved until (by your logic) you get to a superior stage in evolution.
so you are purposely limiting yourself in actions/thoughts/decisions untill you get to that superior stage. it makes no sense to me why one would do that.
i can think of ways (instances in which) geology wouldn't even exist.
Geology is still right even if planets ceased to exist. There's just nothing to talk about anymore.
how would geology affect an AI living inside a computer?
existences, totally different then yours, can have different laws.
(edit: i managed to switch 2 of my posts. aijlergbaergea)
|
On July 30 2013 20:18 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 19:59 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 18:42 Spekulatius wrote:
@ Lixler:
I think I expressed myself badly in my last post. Of course I do agree with you that dying does not remove a moral system. But this does not in any way mean a moral system is like a law of physics.
You say, moral systems survive their "thinker" just as laws of physics do - I disagree.
You say, a physical system of person X needs to be included in the equation the same way the moral system of person X needs to be included in its respective equation - I disagree.
I tried to compare morals to beauty as I believe they are comparable. And I very strongly believe that if you remove a critical beholder from the equation, the notion of beauty stops to make sense. What is beauty if there is nobody who is appreciating it, rating it or feeling it? Nothing. A notion without content.
I very strongly believe the exact same statement holds true for moral systems. Morals are a human invention. Without humans, nobody would ever think about calling something right or wrong. It is completely implausible to me how there should be any universal statement that is not contingent on a beholder.
ObviousOne phrased it much more bluntly: The universe does not care if something is right or wrong. This means a) that only caring about morality produces moral systems which means it's contingent on the human mind. And b) laws of physics are not relative to the beholder, they do not change depending on who's watching/rating/analyzing.
@ Acrofales:
No. You're not getting the fundamental point I'm trying to make.
Universal truths cannot be discovered (as you claim) because
1. there are no universal truths (see above)
2. if there were universal moral truths, they would not be discoverable because they would not be part of the world outside of your mind. Morals have no anchor in the real world. You would not be able to discover moral truths just as you would not be able to "discover" that you are feeling tired, hungry or alone. The word "discover" does not make any sense in this context.
Again, moral "truths" are fundamentally different from laws of nature. Moral systems are like feelings which are - you agree, I suppose - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions of beauty - not universal. Moral systems are like opinions on taste - check our KMD thread: not universal.
I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself though. I am sorry to interfere, but I find this line of reasoning utterly unconvincing. That moral systems require moral agents and that moral theory is only applicable if moral agents exist is a trivial truism, just like the laws of nature would not be applicable if nature would not exist or like geology would not make sense to anyone if planets had not formed. It might be an interesting exercise to investigate in what respect statements could nonetheless be said to be true if none of the objects in the statement had ever obtained existence, but I fail to see how this is in any way special for morality. I am a realist about psychology for instance, in that I think that psychology as a science can generate true statements about the human psyche and human behavior. Would you agree? If yes, why are you not moved by the argument that without any human, no one could make any sense of psychology. If you disagree, what do you think it is that psychologists are doing? I disagree. Geology is still right even if planets ceased to exist. There's just nothing to talk about anymore. Psychology is still right even if all humans ceased to exist. There's just nobody to talk about anymore. Moral statements are still neither right nor wrong in the absence of humans because they don't have the capacity to be either right or wrong because they're relative statements. Stop comparing laws of nature and moral statements. They're fundamentally different. If you can prove that something is objectively beautiful, I will completely submit to your theory that there can be moral absolutes. Until then, no argument containing laws of nature will have anything to do with moral relativity or absolutism, I'm sorry.
Wow ... you just went full circle, or so it seems to me. Before you argued that moral statements cannot be true even though moral agents exist, because they would obviously not be true if moral agents did not exist. Now you say that moral statements are not true without moral agents, because they are obviously not even true when moral agents exist as they are not even capable of being true. Maybe I completely misunderstood you, but I am honestly not sure what to make of this line of reasoning.
How can the otherwise perfectly fine geological statement "Earth's continents move due to continental drift" be said to be true given that planet Earth does not exist? It seems to me that whatever definition of truth you come up with here it would work out for any other statement of similar form as well - including moral statements. That was my point.
|
On July 30 2013 20:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 20:28 Acrofales wrote:On July 30 2013 20:09 WhiteDog wrote:But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter. And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by. The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad. Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason. Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled. You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy. Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right". A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ? Why do you say that we cannot evaluate morals according to some standard and decide which ones are better? I'd argue that we can, and in fact do. That utilitarianism has lots of problems doesn't mean there isn't some way of measuring how well a norm works... just that the field of experimental ethics is very immature and lacks a proper methodology. How can you define the "some standard" ? That's my point, there are no standard that are not up to controversy. Because that standard doesn't exist, one moral will always be better than another in a specific context. For exemple, evaluate what is more moral between "Killing is right" and "Killing is wrong". The only answers you can give for sure is : in some context, killing is right, is some others, killing is wrong. It is right to kill in war, it is wrong to kill your neighbour because he pissed in your garden, etc. Show nested quote +You claim experimentation is needed, but it really isn't. Cosmologists don't experiment, they form a hypothesis and evaluate its predictions by observing the cosmos... not a controlled experiment. Yet cosmology is probably one of the fiellds that has the best claim to be working towards finding truths about the universe, When I say experimentation or "test", I don't necessarily mean controlled environment. In economy they also make experimentation (experience of randomization like in medicine) : they "test" the effect of a specific economical program on an area (say they add computer in schools in Zimbabwe) then they evaluate the effect of the change. My point is, they can't say for sure that what happened in Zimbabwe in 2013 will also exactly happen in Zimbabwe in 2014 or in China in 2013 - I can't entirely separate my conclusions from the context. In cosmology if what I've seen in 2013 does not work in 2014, you have to change your model (because it is wrong). In economy, the same happen, your model is not strictly "wrong", it is not adapted to the situation at hand. Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 20:45 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 20:09 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2013 16:49 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 02:21 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is that you are all searching for a definition of "man" that is not supposed to be up to controversy - so you need something to define this man. See your sentence "Given some contingent facts about human beings and some necessary truths about rational agent interaction allowing torturing babies for fun as a general rule will not lead to a flourishing society" : you considers that there are contingent "facts" about human beings (the use of contingent is obviously really problematic because you admit that you can't define man always and everywhere),
I am not really sure what to make of this paragraph. I can only hope you wrote this because you are confused about the meaning of contingent, because none of your conclusions seem to follow. It is a contingent physiological fact that human beings usually have two hands and ten fingers, in the sense that it does not seem logically necessary that we have two hands and ten fingers. The natural sciences are full of contingent facts, but that does not compromise any of the conclusions physicists derive. It is further not at all necessary to be able to describe "one unchanging human nature" for moral realism. What makes you think that? Human beings are complex physical systems, so obviously there will be lots of variety in their reactions. Then give me contingent facts about human nature that would make it possible for you to rationally critic a moral statement everything equal. How can you rationaly prove me that the fact that we have two hands and ten fingers means anything from a moral stand point. But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter. And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by. The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad. Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason. Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled. You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy. Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right" (unfalsifiable) but that I don't have the knowledge to falsify them. "Human nature" is unfalsifiable (I can find thousands exemples in our history that any definition of "human nature" is wrong, but it doesn't make it wrong). A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ? Your post seems so confused to me that I am afraid that we might be too far apart to communicate with each other meaningfully. I provided you with a contingent fact about human beings that relates to morals: "human beings can suffer". Do I get it right that you think this is a fact, but that it does not relate to morality? If you really do think that the effect of an action on a human beings health cannot be evaluated, then do you also think that nobody could ever really be said to have killed somebody? Or that a meaningful defense against the accusation of killing somebody would be that one did not take the sociological or political context into account sufficiently? Because this view sure sounds rather eccentric to me. Do you understand what everything equal means ? The effect of an action on human beings health CAN be evaluated, but NOT everything equals. I can evaluate that dying of hearth attack at the age of 40 is a bad thing. I cannot strictly, always and everywhere, says that dying is a bad thing - for exemple, is it morally right to die for others ? Show nested quote +Finally, if you are an anti-realist about any of the special sciences then I am not surprised that you are an anti-realist about morality. I would be completely happy to conclude that some statements of morality are as truth-apt as some statements in psychology, economics or medicine and I am a realist about all of them. I don't consider that everything that comes out of the "special sciences" is "always" relative or defined by one's point of view. I'm just not a positivist. I know their limits, and their qualities. There is a reason why most economist could not predict the economic crisis, or that no social scientist can really predict with a 100% certainty what someone will buy if you give him 300 dollars despite the fact that we know a lot about how people consume and why they do so.
But it has been pointed out to you that neither a 100% predictability nor perfect irrefutability nor completely ignoring relevant context is a prerequisite for moral realism- or any realism. It is a complete mystery to me why you still keep referring to these arguments in light of this...
It further seems to me that you don't understand the ceteris paribus clause. In fact you have it completely backwards. It is a limiting assumption precisely to rule out change in relevant context. So if you put up the claim that ceteris paribus killing a human being is immoral, only to go on invalidating it by varying relevant context (but what if we are at war, but what if it's in self-defense...etc.) then this is simply disingenuously violating your own ceteris paribus clause. You could claim that no sufficiently specified context can ever be identified in order to make a moral assessment This could at least be discussed. But you are quite far away from that it seems to me.
|
On July 30 2013 21:26 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 20:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2013 20:28 Acrofales wrote:On July 30 2013 20:09 WhiteDog wrote:But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter. And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by. The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad. Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason. Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled. You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy. Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right". A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ? Why do you say that we cannot evaluate morals according to some standard and decide which ones are better? I'd argue that we can, and in fact do. That utilitarianism has lots of problems doesn't mean there isn't some way of measuring how well a norm works... just that the field of experimental ethics is very immature and lacks a proper methodology. How can you define the "some standard" ? That's my point, there are no standard that are not up to controversy. Because that standard doesn't exist, one moral will always be better than another in a specific context. For exemple, evaluate what is more moral between "Killing is right" and "Killing is wrong". The only answers you can give for sure is : in some context, killing is right, is some others, killing is wrong. It is right to kill in war, it is wrong to kill your neighbour because he pissed in your garden, etc. You claim experimentation is needed, but it really isn't. Cosmologists don't experiment, they form a hypothesis and evaluate its predictions by observing the cosmos... not a controlled experiment. Yet cosmology is probably one of the fiellds that has the best claim to be working towards finding truths about the universe, When I say experimentation or "test", I don't necessarily mean controlled environment. In economy they also make experimentation (experience of randomization like in medicine) : they "test" the effect of a specific economical program on an area (say they add computer in schools in Zimbabwe) then they evaluate the effect of the change. My point is, they can't say for sure that what happened in Zimbabwe in 2013 will also exactly happen in Zimbabwe in 2014 or in China in 2013 - I can't entirely separate my conclusions from the context. In cosmology if what I've seen in 2013 does not work in 2014, you have to change your model (because it is wrong). In economy, the same happen, your model is not strictly "wrong", it is not adapted to the situation at hand. On July 30 2013 20:45 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 20:09 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2013 16:49 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 02:21 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is that you are all searching for a definition of "man" that is not supposed to be up to controversy - so you need something to define this man. See your sentence "Given some contingent facts about human beings and some necessary truths about rational agent interaction allowing torturing babies for fun as a general rule will not lead to a flourishing society" : you considers that there are contingent "facts" about human beings (the use of contingent is obviously really problematic because you admit that you can't define man always and everywhere),
I am not really sure what to make of this paragraph. I can only hope you wrote this because you are confused about the meaning of contingent, because none of your conclusions seem to follow. It is a contingent physiological fact that human beings usually have two hands and ten fingers, in the sense that it does not seem logically necessary that we have two hands and ten fingers. The natural sciences are full of contingent facts, but that does not compromise any of the conclusions physicists derive. It is further not at all necessary to be able to describe "one unchanging human nature" for moral realism. What makes you think that? Human beings are complex physical systems, so obviously there will be lots of variety in their reactions. Then give me contingent facts about human nature that would make it possible for you to rationally critic a moral statement everything equal. How can you rationaly prove me that the fact that we have two hands and ten fingers means anything from a moral stand point. But just as it is not necessary to derive one true nature of the "storm" or of the "cloud" for meteorology to generate true statements about the weather, it is not necessary to have "an unchanging human nature" to derive universally true statements about humans or sentient beings for that matter. And why can you do that for the storm and the cloud ? Because you can test the effect of the storm on the weather all things equals and they will always be the same. Therefore, you don't have to rationally discuss the concept of "storm" or "cloud" to make statement about what happen to the weather when a storm comes by. The effect of a human action everything equal on humanity's "utility", health or morality can never be evaluated. You cannot derive a universal statement out of it, because you cannot get out of the context in which the action have been made. It doesn't mean that someone who kill babies for pleasure is morally good if he thinks it is, it means that you cannot rationally prove to me that killing babies is always morally bad. Talking "rationally" about something doesn't mean you can jump from conclusions to conclusions. Comparaison is not reason. Science is full of questions that can't be proven in any rigorous sense. I realize that in the ongoing discussion with frog you already covered this in parts, but also this notion that knowledge generation has to involve full scale experiments needs to be dispelled. You are mistaking science and reasonning. The fact that every scientific knowledge is based on axiom doesn't mean that the scientific knowledge is impossible to prove. The axiom is not "part" of the scientific knowledge, it is what permit the knowledge, by defining and delimiting the realm of analysis - hence why all sciences needs philosophy. Axioms are a necessity because we cannot test them - that doesn't mean they are "always right" (unfalsifiable) but that I don't have the knowledge to falsify them. "Human nature" is unfalsifiable (I can find thousands exemples in our history that any definition of "human nature" is wrong, but it doesn't make it wrong). A scientific knowledge is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Can you make sure predictions in economy, sociology, or any "social" science, like you do in physics or biology ? Do you think laws exists in social sciences ? Can you build laws on morality ? Your post seems so confused to me that I am afraid that we might be too far apart to communicate with each other meaningfully. I provided you with a contingent fact about human beings that relates to morals: "human beings can suffer". Do I get it right that you think this is a fact, but that it does not relate to morality? If you really do think that the effect of an action on a human beings health cannot be evaluated, then do you also think that nobody could ever really be said to have killed somebody? Or that a meaningful defense against the accusation of killing somebody would be that one did not take the sociological or political context into account sufficiently? Because this view sure sounds rather eccentric to me. Do you understand what everything equal means ? The effect of an action on human beings health CAN be evaluated, but NOT everything equals. I can evaluate that dying of hearth attack at the age of 40 is a bad thing. I cannot strictly, always and everywhere, says that dying is a bad thing - for exemple, is it morally right to die for others ? Finally, if you are an anti-realist about any of the special sciences then I am not surprised that you are an anti-realist about morality. I would be completely happy to conclude that some statements of morality are as truth-apt as some statements in psychology, economics or medicine and I am a realist about all of them. I don't consider that everything that comes out of the "special sciences" is "always" relative or defined by one's point of view. I'm just not a positivist. I know their limits, and their qualities. There is a reason why most economist could not predict the economic crisis, or that no social scientist can really predict with a 100% certainty what someone will buy if you give him 300 dollars despite the fact that we know a lot about how people consume and why they do so. But it has been pointed out to you that neither a 100% predictability nor perfect irrefutability nor completely ignoring relevant context is a prerequisite for moral realism- or any realism. It is a complete mystery to me why you still keep referring to these arguments in light of this...
Yes that I agree. I agree that there are moral truth, but that those truth are also relative (to their context) in the way that there are no transcendante absolute references to moral value and beliefs. This was my point since the beginning when I stated (by quoting passeron) that moral statement can be universal as in digital universalism and not logical universalism : for digital universalism, " the general propositions can always be generated by the logical "conjunction" of the singular statements that it resume."
It further seems to me that you don't understand the ceteris paribus clause. In fact you have it completely backwards. It is a limiting assumption precisely to rule out change in relevant context. So if you put up the claim that ceteris paribus killing a human being is immoral, only to go on invalidating it by varying relevant context (but what if we are at war, but what if it's in self-defense...etc.) then this is simply disingenuously violating your own ceteris paribus clause. You could claim that no sufficiently specified context can ever be identified in order to make a moral assessment This could at least be discussed. But you are quite far away from that it seems to me.
"It further seems to me that you don't understand the ceteris paribus clause".
You need "something" to go from a moral statement in a context to a moral statement ouside of its context.
In practice, social scientists use various statistical tools to isolate a specific fact from its context. It does not work perfectly however as the context in social science can never entirely disappear, and it push some people to consider the ceteris paribus clause as some kind of alibi (to make it seems like we are a science like physics) - "there are no camel in the north pole" as Halbwachs said.
In this case, you have no something, no tools, no ground on which you can pass from the contextual to the out of context, so I can refute your arguments by using other type of contextual facts. If you had a "something" we could discuss the something, but you don't.
|
There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so
Ive never understood the whole supervenience-theories of objectivism. They seem as farfetched as assuming there are other invisible facts floating around supervenient on the natural world. Neither has the naturalistic approach seemed appropriate, mainly because it seems obvious to me that more often than not we use a moral language that implies either external meaning to our moral judgmenet OR we are engaging in (often complex) emotive behaviour ie emotivism. So semantically we are rarely using a naturalistic approach to estethics much less morals. How on earth could naturalism in the light of this be true?
|
On July 30 2013 20:42 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +For example, in the post above, xM(Z argues that "an alien will be able to understand the cause and effect of newtonian laws/mechanics but it might never understand human morals". I find that hard to believe (and impossible to prove, given that the premise is counterfactual). Newtonian mechanics cannot comprehend the perihelion movement of Merkur. Without theory of relativity (light being subject to gravity), we have no explanation for why it gets dark at night. Newton provides no means to explain photoelectric effects. So why would an alien be able to comprehend our erroneous physics but not our erroneous morals? Wouldn't it need intricate knowledge of the functioning and misfunctioning of the human mind for both? . that was a little out of context i fear. the newtonian perspective was the assertion i had to work with given that it was previously posted. i made no claims about the objective truth of newtonian physics. to generalize, physicalism is self explanatory, moralism needs to be explained then taken at face value.
If you make no claims about the objective truth of physics (which particular physical theory we're talking about is irrelevant... name your favorite, I'll google its problems if needed), why do you hold the truth claims of physics in higher esteem than the truth claims of ethics?
Also, you might want to clarify your use of the term "physicalism". How can physicalism be "self explanatory" if what physics describes is false?
|
On July 30 2013 18:42 Spekulatius wrote:
@ Lixler:
I think I expressed myself badly in my last post. Of course I do agree with you that dying does not remove a moral system. But this does not in any way mean a moral system is like a law of physics.
You say, moral systems survive their "thinker" just as laws of physics do - I disagree.
You say, a physical system of person X needs to be included in the equation the same way the moral system of person X needs to be included in its respective equation - I disagree.
I tried to compare morals to beauty as I believe they are comparable. And I very strongly believe that if you remove a critical beholder from the equation, the notion of beauty stops to make sense. What is beauty if there is nobody who is appreciating it, rating it or feeling it? Nothing. A notion without content.
I very strongly believe the exact same statement holds true for moral systems. Morals are a human invention. Without humans, nobody would ever think about calling something right or wrong. It is completely implausible to me how there should be any universal statement that is not contingent on a beholder.
ObviousOne phrased it much more bluntly: The universe does not care if something is right or wrong. This means a) that only caring about morality produces moral systems which means it's contingent on the human mind. And b) laws of physics are not relative to the beholder, they do not change depending on who's watching/rating/analyzing.
I don't know how to take these two statements together.
Of course I do agree with you that dying does not remove a moral system.
You say, moral systems survive their "thinker" just as laws of physics do - I disagree.
Are you trying to take "thinker" broadly here and say that they can't be unhinged totally from all thinkers? I guess that would make sense.
Let me provide some simple arguments for my views, as you've presented them. I say that a moral system survives its thinker just as laws of physics do. What I mean by this is that any given moral system has no intrinsic connection to the person who is applying it (although that person might feel really good about it, or whatever). Other people can adopt a moral system, both before and after this person's life, people can consider the moral system without believing it themselves, and so on. Surely nobody would make moral judgments if there were no rational agents around, but nobody would make physical judgments, either.
I also said that a physical system needs to be included in any physical statement, which system can be linked to a thinker to the same extent that a moral system is. This is trivially true. When I say, for instance, "the chair is under the table," I am invoking a specific set of more or less physical concepts that are accessible to all people who speak English. Another physical system might use these signs to mean something else, or might use different signs to mean the same thing. And with more precise physical statements, like f=ma or e=1/2mv^2, it is obvious that we are taking on a lot of conceptual baggage in order to make our statement. Every statement comes out of a system of concepts that define its precise meaning; this system of concepts surely needs to be applied by a human if it's going to be applied at all, but that doesn't make it a total fiction (or whatever pejoratives you want to call it).
You said that beauty loses its sense if there is no one around to behold it. How about our other classifications, like "green" and "chair" and "born on January 17th?" Does the concept "green" cease to mean anything at all if there is nobody around to see green things? It doesn't seem to me to be so; using the example I used earlier, I can imagine a possible world where everything is green but everyone is red-green colorblind, and green still makes plenty of sense here.
I am maintaining that the universe does not care about our formulations of the laws of physics, either. The universe moves on as it does, and we can describe events that take place in it with different levels of accuracy and precision, but the universe doesn't care about our formulations. You might be surprised to find out that physical events are always underdetermine physical theory: that is to say, given any amount of physical data, we can always construct more than one physical theory that explains it. This means, badly put, that there is no one objectively right and complete set of physical laws that totally describe the universe. There can be multiple systems that perfectly describe and predict all physical data.
I want this to show that our formulations of physical laws are unhinged from the universe just like moral laws are: the universe doesn't care at all that Newton was born or that we haven't found a theory of quantum gravity or whatever. We can come up with certain ways of describing physical events, but these certain ways don't matter at all to the universe. Things stand the same, in this respect, with description of moral events. The universe goes on as it does and we lay our moral interpretations over it. The difference between physical laws and moral laws does not lie in mind-dependence.
On July 30 2013 22:50 Snusmumriken wrote:
There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so
Ive never understood the whole supervenience-theories of objectivism. They seem as farfetched as assuming there are other invisible facts floating around supervenient on the natural world. Neither has the naturalistic approach seemed appropriate, mainly because it seems obvious to me that more often than not we use a moral language that implies either external meaning to our moral judgmenet OR we are engaging in (often complex) emotive behaviour ie emotivism. So semantically we are rarely using a naturalistic approach to estethics much less morals. How on earth could naturalism in the light of this be true?
There are tons of invisible facts floating around supervenient on the natural world. You just mistake them for the natural world. For instance, all descriptions of time are supervenient, and so are all descriptions of objects, and all classifications of animals, and all descriptions of movies. If we take the natural world to mean the raw physical matter, then most of our ordinary ways of talking consist of supervenient facts. If we take the natural world to mean most of our ordinary ways of talking, then it should be no wonder that some things are supervenient on the natural world (since we have defined the natural world such that it excludes these) and some are not (since we have defined the natural world to include these).
|
On July 30 2013 23:29 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 20:42 xM(Z wrote:For example, in the post above, xM(Z argues that "an alien will be able to understand the cause and effect of newtonian laws/mechanics but it might never understand human morals". I find that hard to believe (and impossible to prove, given that the premise is counterfactual). Newtonian mechanics cannot comprehend the perihelion movement of Merkur. Without theory of relativity (light being subject to gravity), we have no explanation for why it gets dark at night. Newton provides no means to explain photoelectric effects. So why would an alien be able to comprehend our erroneous physics but not our erroneous morals? Wouldn't it need intricate knowledge of the functioning and misfunctioning of the human mind for both? . that was a little out of context i fear. the newtonian perspective was the assertion i had to work with given that it was previously posted. i made no claims about the objective truth of newtonian physics. to generalize, physicalism is self explanatory, moralism needs to be explained then taken at face value. If you make no claims about the objective truth of physics (which particular physical theory we're talking about is irrelevant... name your favorite, I'll google its problems if needed), why do you hold the truth claims of physics in higher esteem than the truth claims of ethics? Also, you might want to clarify your use of the term "physicalism". How can physicalism be "self explanatory" if what physics describes is false?
basically this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
i'm saying physicalism includes ethics based on above definition.
This view responds to the challenge of the mind-body problem by claiming that mental states are ultimately physical states,
now, it's not fair to say that i believe in it since i see almost everything in contexts that include other contexts. physicalism could be true if you see it as per its definition and both humans and aliens would live in such an universe.
for you to be able to flip + Show Spoiler +why do you hold the truth claims of physics in higher esteem than the truth claims of ethics
(and i could totally do that too. i could define and prove that faith exists, hypothetically).
if, in any argument i look like i'm supporting/encouraging a view, it's only because i want it clearly defined before i switch it 180degrees.
|
On July 31 2013 00:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 23:29 Poffel wrote:On July 30 2013 20:42 xM(Z wrote:For example, in the post above, xM(Z argues that "an alien will be able to understand the cause and effect of newtonian laws/mechanics but it might never understand human morals". I find that hard to believe (and impossible to prove, given that the premise is counterfactual). Newtonian mechanics cannot comprehend the perihelion movement of Merkur. Without theory of relativity (light being subject to gravity), we have no explanation for why it gets dark at night. Newton provides no means to explain photoelectric effects. So why would an alien be able to comprehend our erroneous physics but not our erroneous morals? Wouldn't it need intricate knowledge of the functioning and misfunctioning of the human mind for both? . that was a little out of context i fear. the newtonian perspective was the assertion i had to work with given that it was previously posted. i made no claims about the objective truth of newtonian physics. to generalize, physicalism is self explanatory, moralism needs to be explained then taken at face value. If you make no claims about the objective truth of physics (which particular physical theory we're talking about is irrelevant... name your favorite, I'll google its problems if needed), why do you hold the truth claims of physics in higher esteem than the truth claims of ethics? Also, you might want to clarify your use of the term "physicalism". How can physicalism be "self explanatory" if what physics describes is false? basically this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism i'm saying physicalism includes ethics based on above definition. Show nested quote +This view responds to the challenge of the mind-body problem by claiming that mental states are ultimately physical states, now, it's not fair to say that i believe in it since i see almost everything in contexts that include other contexts. physicalism could be true if you see it as per its definition and both humans and aliens would live in such an universe. for you to be able to flip + Show Spoiler +why do you hold the truth claims of physics in higher esteem than the truth claims of ethics arround, you'd need to define something like the graviton particle (which is hypothetical) that would work for morals/a moral universe (from which we would later extract our ethics). (and i could totally do that too. i could define and prove that faith exists, hypothetically). if, in any argument i look like i'm supporting/encouraging a view, it's only because i want it clearly defined before i switch it 180degrees.
Don't take this the wrong way - I don't mean it aggressive or offensive -, but if you have nothing constructive to contribute and contradict yourself on purpose (180 degree switch), consider "if aliens..." a valid objection and disregard the possibility of objective knowledge right from the outset, I don't see that fostering the purpose of clear definitions at all. To the contrary, the language games you're playing seem to be rather about terminological confusion.
Also, the bolded sentence sounds like the lexical definition of trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
