|
On July 31 2013 06:19 Spekulatius wrote:
So you're disagreeing with his (and my) claim that true and false are notions that do not apply when we talk about moral statements?
You already know I disagree about that, though I wasn't directly responding to anything you said. I was instead replying to the absurd notion that 'true' and 'false' only make sense within formal systems that they predate.
|
On July 31 2013 06:21 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 06:19 Spekulatius wrote:
So you're disagreeing with his (and my) claim that true and false are notions that do not apply when we talk about moral statements? You already know I disagree about that, though I wasn't directly responding to anything you said. I was instead replying to the absurd notion that 'true' and 'false' only make sense within formal systems that they predate.
I guess its widely known that the existence of a word does not exclude new understandings of it.
|
On July 31 2013 06:31 gneGne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 06:21 frogrubdown wrote:On July 31 2013 06:19 Spekulatius wrote:
So you're disagreeing with his (and my) claim that true and false are notions that do not apply when we talk about moral statements? You already know I disagree about that, though I wasn't directly responding to anything you said. I was instead replying to the absurd notion that 'true' and 'false' only make sense within formal systems that they predate. I guess its widely known that the existence of a word does not exclude new understandings of it.
Do you take me to be denying this? If you claim that a term doesn't make sense outside of formal systems, then you are taking the pre formal systems use of that word (which has continued as the common use) to not make any sense. I find that implausible.
|
On July 31 2013 06:38 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 06:31 gneGne wrote:On July 31 2013 06:21 frogrubdown wrote:On July 31 2013 06:19 Spekulatius wrote:
So you're disagreeing with his (and my) claim that true and false are notions that do not apply when we talk about moral statements? You already know I disagree about that, though I wasn't directly responding to anything you said. I was instead replying to the absurd notion that 'true' and 'false' only make sense within formal systems that they predate. I guess its widely known that the existence of a word does not exclude new understandings of it. Do you take me to be denying this? If you claim that a term doesn't make sense outside of formal systems, then you are taking the pre formal systems use of that word (which has continued as the common use) to not make any sense. I find that implausible.
That's not what I meant. I meant that words can have different understandings. It requires philosophy to bring these different understandings to value though.
|
On July 31 2013 06:44 gneGne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 06:38 frogrubdown wrote:On July 31 2013 06:31 gneGne wrote:On July 31 2013 06:21 frogrubdown wrote:On July 31 2013 06:19 Spekulatius wrote:
So you're disagreeing with his (and my) claim that true and false are notions that do not apply when we talk about moral statements? You already know I disagree about that, though I wasn't directly responding to anything you said. I was instead replying to the absurd notion that 'true' and 'false' only make sense within formal systems that they predate. I guess its widely known that the existence of a word does not exclude new understandings of it. Do you take me to be denying this? If you claim that a term doesn't make sense outside of formal systems, then you are taking the pre formal systems use of that word (which has continued as the common use) to not make any sense. I find that implausible. That's not what I meant. I meant that words can have different understandings. It requires philosophy to bring these different understandings to value though.
I never thought that was what you meant. I was responding to the post directly above mine which claimed just what I said it did. If you're saying that the definition of "truth" in formal languages can help shed light on its meaning in natural languages, I'd agree. But that is miles away from the claim, which was my target, that 'truth' doesn't make sense outside of formal languages.
|
What is the other, the common meaning of the word true that you presuppose to be the originary one then?
|
On July 31 2013 06:49 Spekulatius wrote:
What is the other, the common meaning of the word true that you presuppose to be the originary one then?
In natural languages, words do not gain their meanings by having their definitions stipulated, at least not the vast majority of times. I don't take there to be any definition that exactly captures the meaning of 'truth' in natural language. Maybe 'correspondence with reality' is extensionally equivalent, but you're not going to understand what that means if you don't already know what 'truth' means.
That said, you can get an awfully long way in understanding 'truth' once you learn that
'S' is true if and only if S
holds quite generally (for declarative sentence substitutes of 'S', of course).
|
"Correspondence with reality" is exactly what truth means to me. And to Acritter, I would assume.
Consequence: since there is no moral "reality" that a moral statement can correspond to, moral statements cannot be true.
I've said this half a dozen of times though. And you keep ignoring it. Your counter-"arguments" are a) calling differing opinions absurd b) calling different statements implausible and c) saying that if I don't get what you mean, it cannot be explained.
Which is rhetorical bullshit and intellectual surrender.
|
On July 31 2013 07:02 Spekulatius wrote:
"Correspondence with reality" is exactly what truth means to me. And to Acritter, I would assume.
Maybe that's what he meant. You'd have to ask him. But that congeals very poorly with the claim that it only makes sense within logical systems because "correspondence with reality" does make sense outside of such systems and is irrelevant within them.
Consequence: since there is no moral "reality" that a moral statement can correspond to, moral statements cannot be true.
I've said this half a dozen of times though. And you keep ignoring it. Your counter-"arguments" are a) calling differing opinions absurd b) calling different statements implausible and c) saying that if I don't get what you mean, it cannot be explained.
Which is rhetorical bullshit and intellectual surrender.
You seem to be under the impression that I've been responding to you even when I'm not directly posting to you about claims you've made. I haven't been, because I currently have no interest in debating any issue with you. Sorry that you'd like me to.
The opinion I called "absurd" was one that another posted advanced, and based on this post you agree with me on it. The statement I called "implausible" was the same statement. The claim about being able to define "truth" was a purely general statement that I take to hold for every theoretically interesting term, not a swipe at you.
Not a single one of these claims I made was aimed at claims you made. You're not the center of my universe.
|
On July 31 2013 07:09 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 07:02 Spekulatius wrote:
"Correspondence with reality" is exactly what truth means to me. And to Acritter, I would assume. Maybe that's what he meant. You'd have to ask him. But that congeals very poorly with the claim that it only makes sense within logical systems because "correspondence with reality" does make sense outside of such systems and is irrelevant within them. Show nested quote +Consequence: since there is no moral "reality" that a moral statement can correspond to, moral statements cannot be true.
I've said this half a dozen of times though. And you keep ignoring it. Your counter-"arguments" are a) calling differing opinions absurd b) calling different statements implausible and c) saying that if I don't get what you mean, it cannot be explained.
Which is rhetorical bullshit and intellectual surrender. You seem to be under the impression that I've been responding to you even when I'm not directly posting to you about claims you've made. I haven't been, because I currently have no interest in debating any issue with you. Sorry that you'd like me to. The opinion I called "absurd" was one that another posted advanced, and based on this post you agree with me on it. The statement I called "implausible" was the same statement. The claim about being able to define "truth" was a purely general statement that I take to hold for every theoretically interesting term, not a swipe at you. Not a single one of these claims I made was aimed at claims you made. You're not the center of my universe.
Very sorry if I misconstrued your criticism of a position that was fundamentally similar to mine as a criticism of my own posting. Wonder how that happened.
But ok, I'll get out of your way then.
|
On July 31 2013 04:23 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 00:33 Poffel wrote:On July 31 2013 00:03 xM(Z wrote: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. 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.  i agree with you but you're wrong. it goes like this: dualism -> binary opposition -> critical (social mainly) theory. i do not own concepts so i can't contradict myself. i contradict other concepts but, with a purpose (and that, i hope, is not trolling  ). this whole topic is about flipping contexts around then arguing about the disappearance of morals/ethics/truths or flipping contexts, arguing about how the initial assertion doesn't hold water in the second/new context then concluding that the first context must be wrong. + Show Spoiler +ex: slavery = ethics, humanity = context. if you define humanity as a white thing, then slavery exists; if you define humanity as a black and white thing, then slavery disappears (don't take that example ad-literam); what is green green, in a colorblind vs non-colorblind context; evaluable truths in an non-evaluative context (=infinity) and so on. i just do them at the same time and it looks confusing. in a black vs white argument i'll just come in and say: hey look, this is gray. ;if neither of them can conceive gray, then you can just walk away knowing that those 2 will never see eye to eye.
In all honesty, you're making it not easy to understand what you're going for... sentences like "I agree with you but you're wrong" are hardly illuminating and rather make me go "Oh dear, who gave that guy I'm discussing with a lobotomy after his next-to-last reply?" Nevertheless, I think I got an idea of what you're aiming for, so please take it with a grain of salt when I dare to recommend a stylistic improvement:
I figure that your "dualism -> binary opposition -> critical (social mainly) theory" implies that you're trying to go beyond mere 'standpoint philosophy' insofar as you're hoping to see both (or all) sides of the rivaling theoretizations at once. That would be a laudable effort, but so far all I have taken from your posts was more or less overt skepticism that has little in common with 'critical examination' in the sense of critical theory. Alas, I see no attempts at a reconciliation of discrepancies or a sublation of antinomies, and mostly don't even see a serious attempt to evaluate an argument for what it's worth. Now, I don't mean to say that a decent dosage of skepticism isn't a good thing. However, in your scheme, I would put my expression as "systemic doubt -> factual doubt -> critical examination".
Systemic doubt is barely high school-level philosophy. "It could all be a dream." or "What if a miracle happened?" aren't relevant counterarguments. My five year old niece can shoot down all scientific explanations by asking "Why... why... why... " ad nauseam until we arrive at an unproven premise. Frankly, I don't see how this kind of doubt can serve any purpose. For example, I would consider "But aliens?" a counterfactual and irrelevant objection. What if aliens came to earth? Then the connotation of 'knowledge' might change from 'intersubjectively comprehensible' to 'intersubjectively comprehensible by human intelligence'... so what? Likewise, if you argue that physical theories hold no 'objective truth', what does this contribute to the discussion? Ok, then there is no objective truth whatsoever. I can assure you that most moral realists will be rather happy with the allegation that ethics are just as capable of truth as physics, so your objection doesn't strike me as particularly bothersome to any theory discussed in this thread (well, some physicists would probably cringe at it, but that's off topic).
Long story short, I would recommend you to stick to relevant counterarguments (i.e those based on factual doubt) and maybe even start to consider both the cons and pros of a theory. Not only is this the hallmark that makes critical theory a productive approach to (the conditions of) knowledge that is superior to mere skepticism, it probably also would help to avoid the 'eristic' vibe that at least I'm getting when I read your posts.
|
xM(Z might very well be the greatest poster to have ever graced tl. But god only knows if I can understand anything of what he wrotes.
|
On July 31 2013 01:23 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 16:43 MiraMax wrote:On July 30 2013 01:41 Sbrubbles wrote:
I'm not sure you can jump from "torturing babies for fun is morally wrong" to "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.". The first sentence makes an ethical assertion while the second one makes a point about how society ought to be, so it sounds odd to say the first meaning to say the second.
I am not sure that I follow you completely. On the face of it, both sentences could be said to be descriptive of a certain state of affairs (note that the second sentence does not contain any ought) or a counterfactual (given that in no society anybody is actually torturing babies). Whether you agree that the semantic content of the two statements is the same/similar/comparable is a different thing altogether and I wholeheartedly admit that it provides only a crude summary of my view. I further think that -given some further philosophical reasoning - from both statements follows an ought, if they are true - that is a moral obligation not to torture babies for fun. I agree with error theorists that this is not any cosmic or categorical imperative, but more in the form of prudence, in the sense that rational agents can and should agree on the fact that not torturing babies for fun should be followed. I think I phrased it badly. I just meant to say that the statement "torturing babies for fun is morally wrong" is a statement about morals (philosophy) while the statement "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" is about anthropology or perhaps sociology. I could, for example, make the two statements "being lazy is morally wrong" and "being lazy will not lead to a flourishing society". The first statement is about morals and the second about economics. If you want to reach the first statement from the second one, you need to show what bridge you're using, like: "Being lazy will not lead to a flourishing society. It is self-evident that reaching a flourishing society is the goal that determines what is morally right and wrong. Thus, being lazy is morally wrong". But even if you are a realist and make this connection naturally, it doesn't change the fact that those two statements say different things.
That doesn't matter. Look at this: when you put hydrogen and oxygen together, they react in an exothermic redox reaction. This is clearly a statement about chemistry.
When you put hydrogen and oxygen together, the quantum functions of their electrons go through some kind of complicated stuff that I have no clue about, resulting in bla bla bla (sorry, I ran out of knowledge about particle physics and quantum mechanics).
This doesn't mean chemistry does not exist. It is simply an abstraction that serves to explain stuff. I agree with you that a utilitarian view of morality is probably reducable to statistical statements about society, but that doesn't mean they cannot be considered at a more abstract level too. It doesn't make moral truths any less real if, to fully understand why they are true, they have to be reduced to statistical equations describing conditional probabilities in society, just as chemical truths are no less real because to understand exactly what is happening we need physics.
|
Best way to deal with xmz in any thread he "graces" with his presence is to just ignore him. He always trolls. There was a time when I thought he was serious, but unable to express himself clearly. That time is long gone.
EDIT: oooh, it's my birthday in Korea.
|
Sorry for taking so long to finish.
To address the general criticism on true and false: numbers existed before mathematics. Or, to go beyond analogy, logical systems existed before we formalized them. I don't think anyone here will say for a second that people from tens of thousands of years ago would disagree with most basic logical statements. And indeed, to frogrubdown's unbelievable statement that formal logical systems are only 200 years old, I say: are you unfamiliar with Classical mathematics? Mathematics is inherently logical. Humans have had logic for a long, long time.
|
On July 31 2013 09:57 Acritter wrote:
Sorry for taking so long to finish.
To address the general criticism on true and false: numbers existed before mathematics. Or, to go beyond analogy, logical systems existed before we formalized them. I don't think anyone here will say for a second that people from tens of thousands of years ago would disagree with most basic logical statements. And indeed, to frogrubdown's unbelievable statement that formal logical systems are only 200 years old, I say: are you unfamiliar with Classical mathematics? Mathematics is inherently logical. Humans have had logic for a long, long time.
Sorry, your claim to be "slightly educated" and claims about logical systems led me to believe you were talking about definitions of truth within a model and of logical truth that have only existed for a short while. Apparently you aren't familiar with these definitions and were speaking from a more common sense perspective of what is and is not logical. I don't exactly know how to interpret your argument on this reading, but plausibly my retorts don't apply to it.
And no, my claim is not incredible. Mathematicians, even today (but hundreds of years ago, exclusively), primarily make use of informal arguments. This isn't to say their arguments aren't rigorous (they are), just that they do not typically take place within a formal language. Learn something about what formal logic actually is before pronouncing on my ignorance.
edit: That last sentence is definitely harsher than I should have put it. But if all you wanted to do was explain that you were using an informal type of logic, you could have stopped there. Instead, you went on to make a claim about my ignorance of mathematics based on a mistaken understanding of formal logic. That was my issue.
|
On July 31 2013 10:18 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 09:57 Acritter wrote:
Sorry for taking so long to finish.
To address the general criticism on true and false: numbers existed before mathematics. Or, to go beyond analogy, logical systems existed before we formalized them. I don't think anyone here will say for a second that people from tens of thousands of years ago would disagree with most basic logical statements. And indeed, to frogrubdown's unbelievable statement that formal logical systems are only 200 years old, I say: are you unfamiliar with Classical mathematics? Mathematics is inherently logical. Humans have had logic for a long, long time. Sorry, your claim to be "slightly educated" and claims about logical systems led me to believe you were talking about definitions of truth within a model and of logical truth that have only existed for a short while. Apparently you aren't familiar with these definitions and were speaking from a more common sense perspective of what is and is not logical. I don't exactly know how to interpret your argument on this reading, but plausibly my retorts don't apply to it. And no, my claim is not incredible. Mathematicians, even today (but hundreds of years ago, exclusively), primarily make use of informal arguments. This isn't to say their arguments aren't rigorous (they are), just that they do not typically take place within a formal language. Learn something about what formal logic actually is before pronouncing on my ignorance.
Just because formal definitions of something don't exist doesn't mean the actual THING doesn't exist. People will unconsciously use Newtonian physics to throw and catch a ball, but that doesn't mean they can run through the calculations. Does that make it more clear to your highly educated brain? Or should I point out who of the two of us was the first to use the word formal? It's not considered appropriate to bring something into a discussion and pretend it was there all along.
|
On July 31 2013 10:25 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 10:18 frogrubdown wrote:On July 31 2013 09:57 Acritter wrote:
Sorry for taking so long to finish.
To address the general criticism on true and false: numbers existed before mathematics. Or, to go beyond analogy, logical systems existed before we formalized them. I don't think anyone here will say for a second that people from tens of thousands of years ago would disagree with most basic logical statements. And indeed, to frogrubdown's unbelievable statement that formal logical systems are only 200 years old, I say: are you unfamiliar with Classical mathematics? Mathematics is inherently logical. Humans have had logic for a long, long time. Sorry, your claim to be "slightly educated" and claims about logical systems led me to believe you were talking about definitions of truth within a model and of logical truth that have only existed for a short while. Apparently you aren't familiar with these definitions and were speaking from a more common sense perspective of what is and is not logical. I don't exactly know how to interpret your argument on this reading, but plausibly my retorts don't apply to it. And no, my claim is not incredible. Mathematicians, even today (but hundreds of years ago, exclusively), primarily make use of informal arguments. This isn't to say their arguments aren't rigorous (they are), just that they do not typically take place within a formal language. Learn something about what formal logic actually is before pronouncing on my ignorance. Just because formal definitions of something don't exist doesn't mean the actual THING doesn't exist. People will unconsciously use Newtonian physics to throw and catch a ball, but that doesn't mean they can run through the calculations. Does that make it more clear to your highly educated brain? Or should I point out who of the two of us was the first to use the word formal? It's not considered appropriate to bring something into a discussion and pretend it was there all along.
I already acknowledged that 'formal' wasn't there to begin with, explained why I incorrectly took you to intend it, acknowledged that that likely meant my argument didn't apply to whatever your actual claim was, and apologized. What more do you want?
The only reason I mentioned anything about what formal logic is in fact like in my post is because you made an explicit claim in the post I replied to about Mathematicians using formal logic for centuries. Look at your own post; you say "formal". Your claim was false and your accusation of my ignorance of mathematics based on it misguided.
|
On July 31 2013 02:46 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 23:42 Lixler 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.
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. yes. Show nested quote +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. Yes. A moral system is like a pen. It can be used by your heirs and everyone else after you die. I dunno why you invoke physical judgments though. Trying to interpret the outside world is nothing like saying A is better than B. This is actually my main problem with what you're saying and I get critisized for disagreeing with you on it. You do the same as me though, simply stating the contrary as fact without proof that they are indeed comparable. Show nested quote +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). So? Show nested quote +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. Green is different. "Green" is the word we use for a certain wave length of light that is emitted from a certain object and processed by a functioning human brain and eye. There's no judgment in the word green.
Chair is different, too. Chair is a level plane on pillars made for sitting. No personal value, no judgment.
Born of January 17th means, someone came out of a womb on the day that is marked on january 17th on our gregorian calendar.
All those words do not lose meaning when there's no human around. (Except you mean meaning in a "purpose" kind of way which I don't.)Show nested quote +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 am surprised to hear you say that with perfect knowledge of the outside world, there could still be two different interpretations that are equally true. I find that hard to believe. Source on that theory? Show nested quote +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. I agree with your first part. If our interpretations of nature are right or wrong does not change nature. I said a similar thing before in this thread. You're not disproving me or anything. And I'm still weary about what your opinion actually is.
For underdetermination - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/ although I was being a little disingenuous in trying to present it as obviously true.
Anyway, what I'd like to focus on is what I've bolded. It looks like you're under the impression that if we can provide a definition for what one of our terms means, those terms don't lose meaning when there are no humans around. Besides the obvious simplicity of your definitions, this idea is very strange to hold along with the opinion that moral judgments lose meaning when there are no humans around. What if we could provide a similar definition for our moral terms? Would they then retain meaning without humans? Do you think the ability to create a set of formal criteria is what makes certain words able to retain their meaning without any humans around to use them?
|
On July 31 2013 03:17 Spekulatius wrote:
@ Miramax
As you expect, I don't agree.
A statement about nature has the capacity to correspond to its factual state, thus has the capability to be true.
A moral statement can never correspond to a factual state of anything because there is no thing which it can correspond to.
Science has its hypotheses and tries to match them to reality. Morals don't, as there is nothing factual that they can be matched with.
If you disagree, tell me why there should be a universally correct moral statement. Why do you believe there is, and do you have any proof?
You could just read my other posts in this thread where I have tried to do all of what you ask. But for your convenience I will give you a short rundown. I think that moral statements relate to the (potential) consequences of actions of rational agents on sentient beings. Especially insofar as they can lead to suffering or well-being. That's what I understand moral talk to mean. Because I think that it can in some cases reasonably be ascertained whether an action leads to suffering or is conducive to well-being, I conclude that some moral statements are truth-apt and that some of these are actually true.
I further think that some of these statements are universally true because of some necessary truths about sentience and rational agent behavior. For instance I hold that the statement: "A moral action that harms a sentient being needs to have some potential redeeming consequence that benefits a sentient being" is universally
true, given what I understand morality to mean. Would you agree with the statement? Why or why not?And if not, would you agree with the statement given my understanding of moral semantics?
By the way, you still did not answer in what sense geological statements about earth could be considered 'true' given that earth did not exist. It can't be correspondence to reality in this case, can it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
