What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[Leumas]

Apparently, Leumas thinks "science" and "knowledge" are synonyms.

Yes... yes.. I certainly do ... the fact that you do not is very telling!!!

Maybe "philosophy" and "religion" mean the same thing too.

No... you got that one wrong... although religion IS a philosophy, it is not true that all philosophy is religion. Much like humans are apes but not all apes are humans.

I have no idea what "philodeusy" or "sophia" mean. Maybe they're friends of his?

Philo = love/like of something.
Sophia = knowledge or wisdom.

Ergo ... Philosophy = love of knowledge or wisdom.

Deus = deities or gods or Gods.

Ergo... well... you get the idea.

Sophia (Sofía/Sophy) is also the name of my daughter... so wisdom is my aim and my friend and the name I gave to my beloved daughter.

However, philodeusy is most definitely something I try to avoid as much as any other benightedness.

Ah... and by the way...

Science

• The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
  
  Synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline.​
• A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
  
• archaic... knowledge of any kind.
  
• Origin ...Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’

 

[I Am The Scum]

Yes... yes.. I certainly do ... the fact that you do not is very telling!!!

Well there's your problem. What's the difference between a science class and a history class? The history class doesn't deal with knowledge?

 

[marplots]

Well there's your problem. What's the difference between a science class and a history class? The history class doesn't deal with knowledge?

Ha! I know the difference. History is about stuff that happened, and science is about stuff that happened... with math.

 

[Leumas]

Ha! I know the difference. History is about stuff that happened, and science is about stuff that happened happens... with math to model the how, why and when.

There IFTFY... now it is more accurate.

But do you too think that learning about history is not an attainment of knowledge?

And why are we suddenly comparing history to science instead of philosophy and philodeusy to science? Why the sudden goalposts movement?

 

[tsig]

There IFTFY... now it is more accurate.

But do you too think that learning about history is not an attainment of knowledge?

And why are we suddenly comparing history to science instead of philosophy and philodeusy to science? Why the sudden goalposts movement?

When sophistry fails and the word salads are all eaten the mobile goalposts are the last defense of the disingenuous.

 

[phiwum]

When sophistry fails and the word salads are all eaten the mobile goalposts are the last defense of the disingenuous.

That could be it.

Or it could be that Leumas rashly claimed that knowledge and science are synonyms, from which it follows either that history is not a part of knowledge, or it is a part of science.

So, perhaps it was Leumas's own statements that led to The Scum's question. It was Leumas who made the goalposts bigger, and The Scum merely pointed this out.

 

[Dancing David]

Let me ask you this: Can a claim be objectively false and subjectively true?

Yes and no, hallucinations and other faults of perception are an obvious example. The person who has auditory hallucinations does not hear an actual person talking to them they are experiencing spurious perceptions of a human voice.

When you close one eye and look at a complex visual field, your brain generates a perceptual pattern o fill in the visual blind spot. Therefore an object may be there that you do not see.

Perceptually these are true events, however in one there is no objective reality to match the spurious internal stimulus and in the other there is no perception to match the objective reality.

Now this doesn't even address the other areas, where due to confirmation bias a person may have a false belief that is not born by the evidence, or social and cultural values that are also incorrect.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, overall reality is objective, but when you have biological evolution a part of reality in practice becomes subjective.

You keep stating that evolution does something it doesn't, care to explain your statement in terms of neurology, cognition, perceptions and other science?

Perceptions, stimuli, cognition and beliefs can all be false. They do not live ins some kantian meta space, nor do they acquire magic powers by just being biological.

 

[phiwum]

When sophistry fails and the word salads are all eaten the mobile goalposts are the last defense of the disingenuous.

Let's talk about being disingenuous.

You ask me a question, I answer to the best of my ability. Then, many posts later, you insinuate that my clear, explicit answer is a bit of sophistry or word salad. If there's something that I've said that does not appear as clear as it should be, let me know.

On the other hand, I've asked you many questions in this thread, and I don't think you've answered any of them. I've asked you for instance if your dull repetition of the question about rational anti-realists (a question which misrepresented my position several times before you finally corrected it) indicates that you doubt my answer is correct, and you have never replied. You like to insinuate that there's something wrong with my answer, but you can point to no fault in it, so instead you try to compare it to a distinct religious argument and tar me by association.

So, yes, Tsig, let's talk about which of us is here to share opinions and arguments and which is just diddling, sticking his finger up his ass and flinging whatever he finds there, with no attempt to defend his own insinuations.

Or, you could show that you are indeed interested in the discussion by answering a question. Let's start with this one: am I wrong about my claims regarding the ideally rational anti-realist? If so, please show me where my reasoning went awry.

Thrilled, as always, to have an intellectually engaging conversation with you.

 

[tsig]

Let's talk about being disingenuous.

You ask me a question, I answer to the best of my ability. Then, many posts later, you insinuate that my clear, explicit answer is a bit of sophistry or word salad. If there's something that I've said that does not appear as clear as it should be, let me know.

On the other hand, I've asked you many questions in this thread, and I don't think you've answered any of them. I've asked you for instance if your dull repetition of the question about rational anti-realists (a question which misrepresented my position several times before you finally corrected it) indicates that you doubt my answer is correct, and you have never replied. You like to insinuate that there's something wrong with my answer, but you can point to no fault in it, so instead you try to compare it to a distinct religious argument and tar me by association.

So, yes, Tsig, let's talk about which of us is here to share opinions and arguments and which is just diddling, sticking his finger up his ass and flinging whatever he finds there, with no attempt to defend his own insinuations.
Or, you could show that you are indeed interested in the discussion by answering a question. Let's start with this one: am I wrong about my claims regarding the ideally rational anti-realist? If so, please show me where my reasoning went awry.

Thrilled, as always, to have an intellectually engaging conversation with you.

Same here though given the hilited I daresay my definition of an intellectually engaging conversation probably differs from yours.

 

[phiwum]

Same here though given the hilited I daresay my definition of an intellectually engaging conversation probably differs from yours.

Still refusing to answer my question, I see.

 

[tsig]

Whatever you think.

By the way, I answered your repeated questions about the ideally rational anti-realist about half a dozen times. Let me ask you: is my answer incorrect? If so, why? Where do I go wrong?

No sense leaving that ball in the air, right?

An ideally rational man, yes, who denied the objectivity of moral norms. I think that is undeniable.

I also think that it is undeniable that in most situations, his interests are best served by not lying, cheating, stealing or murdering. I think it's a matter of some controversy how often his interests would be better served by lying, cheating, stealing or murdering, but it is surely a small minority of times, because we live in a social setting in which reputation, feelings of security, good will and so on matter to our own personal utility.

If you disagree with this conclusion about the ideally rational anti-realist, then perhaps you should say why, rather than just asking the same question over and over again. It can't be because you think that such behavior is intrinsically bad, because after all, the hypothetical condition is that there is no such intrinsic badness. So, what is it that makes you think this conclusion is in the least bit controversial?

Let's talk about being disingenuous.

You ask me a question, I answer to the best of my ability. Then, many posts later, you insinuate that my clear, explicit answer is a bit of sophistry or word salad. If there's something that I've said that does not appear as clear as it should be, let me know.

On the other hand, I've asked you many questions in this thread, and I don't think you've answered any of them. I've asked you for instance if your dull repetition of the question about rational anti-realists (a question which misrepresented my position several times before you finally corrected it) indicates that you doubt my answer is correct, and you have never replied. You like to insinuate that there's something wrong with my answer, but you can point to no fault in it, so instead you try to compare it to a distinct religious argument and tar me by association.

So, yes, Tsig, let's talk about which of us is here to share opinions and arguments and which is just diddling, sticking his finger up his ass and flinging whatever he finds there, with no attempt to defend his own insinuations.

Or, you could show that you are indeed interested in the discussion by answering a question. Let's start with this one: am I wrong about my claims regarding the ideally rational anti-realist? If so, please show me where my reasoning went awry.
Thrilled, as always, to have an intellectually engaging conversation with you.

Still refusing to answer my question, I see.

I don't see how you can be wrong about your own claims. I don't think that a rational individual would disregard all norms just because they had not been enacted by a god or some other outside force.

 

[phiwum]

I don't see how you can be wrong about your own claims. I don't think that a rational individual would disregard all norms just because they had not been enacted by a god or some other outside force.

Who's talking about gods and outside forces?

We presume that a rational being aims to maximize utility, at least insofar as he can without violating any norms that he is rationally required to obey. If he is an anti-realist, then he does not believe that there are any moral norms he is rationally required to obey, but he may have some moral preferences, norms which he believes are purely subjective.

Were he to keep these preferences, then he limits his choices, and this can never produce a beneficial effect for utility -- unless somehow having what one believes are arbitrary moral preferences somehow produces more utility than having free choice to do whatever one wants. I doubt that is the case.

Now that we are clear that moral realism is not necessarily about outside forces or gods, you want to have another go at it? This time, try explaining your reasoning rather than just baldly stating a conclusion.

 

[David Mo]

It's quite simple.
The earth is well-inhabited and well-explored. There are, far as I know, no mammals that are green, and certainly no discovered canines that are green. We do occasionally discover new species, but I think that new canines are very rarely discovered, and given that there are no known green mammals, I think the odds that we have failed to discover green canines are very slim.
So, in this case, it seems the lack of evidence combined with certain knowledge about mammals, rate of discovery of species, etc., give me actual reasons to conclude that green dogs are unlikely. I think the same considerations apply for the other examples.

This, then, is not an appeal to ignorance, but an appeal to certain facts.
I see no particular analogue for the case of objective morals. We can say this: so far, there is no convincing argument that there are objective moral norms. This by itself does not give any particular evidence that such norms do not exist unless we think that a successful argument would likely have been discovered by now if they did exist. But we know also that no successful argument has been given so far that there are no objective moral norms, so it seems to me that we are at an impasse.

Arguments about philosophical claims are not much like arguments concerning the existence of unknown species quite different from those we know, it seems.

It's quite simple.

Moral theories and moral systems are as old as humanity. There are, far as I know, no moral principles that are objective, and certainly no discovered sustained by objective argumentations. We do occasionally find new species of ethical naturalism, but I think that new moral theories are very rarely discovered from the Plato’s times till Spinoza or Kant, and given that there are not known any objective moral principle, I think the odds that we have failed to discover this strange kind of mental entities till the present day and in this forum.
So, in this case, it seems the lack of evidence combined with certain knowledge about moral principles, moral theories, etc., give me actual reasons to conclude that moral objective principles are unlikely. I think the same considerations apply for the other examples.

​

All joking aside, a mutation can produce a green dog. It is theoretically possible. Furthermore, science has nothing to do with mountain gnomes or flying fairies. Our unique reason to disbelief is that no one has ever presented any evidence that these entities exist. It is the same thing for objective morality, from Plato to Sam Harris.
I have read a lot of books on the subject and I have not found any valuable example. However, my experience can be wrong and someone can provide here an example of objective morality than do not be vague or pure ideal.
Not possibilities but a definite proposal.

I’m waiting for.

 

[David Mo]

Were he to keep these preferences, then he limits his choices, and this can never produce a beneficial effect for utility -- unless somehow having what one believes are arbitrary moral preferences somehow produces more utility than having free choice to do whatever one wants. I doubt that is the case.

Excuse me, I don't understand the relation between the anti-realistic position in moral and arbitrary moral preferences. A relativist can choose the maximum personal benefit and this is not arbitrary neither irrational in any sense.

 

[phiwum]

It's quite simple.

Moral theories and moral systems are as old as humanity. There are, far as I know, no moral principles that are objective, and certainly no discovered sustained by objective argumentations. We do occasionally find new species of ethical naturalism, but I think that new moral theories are very rarely discovered from the Plato’s times till Spinoza or Kant, and given that there are not known any objective moral principle, I think the odds that we have failed to discover this strange kind of mental entities till the present day and in this forum.
So, in this case, it seems the lack of evidence combined with certain knowledge about moral principles, moral theories, etc., give me actual reasons to conclude that moral objective principles are unlikely. I think the same considerations apply for the other examples.

​

All joking aside, a mutation can produce a green dog. It is theoretically possible. Furthermore, science has nothing to do with mountain gnomes or flying fairies. Our unique reason to disbelief is that no one has ever presented any evidence that these entities exist. It is the same thing for objective morality, from Plato to Sam Harris.
I have read a lot of books on the subject and I have not found any valuable example. However, my experience can be wrong and someone can provide here an example of objective morality than do not be vague or pure ideal.
Not possibilities but a definite proposal.

I’m waiting for.

I don't think your position is stupid. I think that one can certainly come to the anti-realist position on the basis of the failure of realism.

However, as you and I both know, this is an inductive and hence probabilistic argument intended to settle a philosophical debate. This inductive argument is fairly weak milk for putting an end to the issue. We all know that sometimes there are advances that eluded us for centuries.

So, I'll agree that your position is perfectly sensible without agreeing that every rational man is bound to concede the point. As William James said, this is an issue in which it may be reasonable to will to believe.

 

[phiwum]

Excuse me, I don't understand the relation between the anti-realistic position in moral and arbitrary moral preferences. A relativist can choose the maximum personal benefit and this is not arbitrary neither irrational in any sense.

His choice, insofar as it is a moral preference, seems arbitrary to me. He could follow hedonistic egoism, utilitarianism, a list of rules from some book, and on and on, and not one of those systems has any claim on being more right than any other. Surely, it is reasonable to say that this is then an arbitrary preference (even if it can be explained by this or that motivation).

 

[I Am The Scum]

If all knowledge is science, then is all evidence scientific?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes and no, hallucinations and other faults of perception are an obvious example. The person who has auditory hallucinations does not hear an actual person talking to them they are experiencing spurious perceptions of a human voice.

When you close one eye and look at a complex visual field, your brain generates a perceptual pattern o fill in the visual blind spot. Therefore an object may be there that you do not see.

Perceptually these are true events, however in one there is no objective reality to match the spurious internal stimulus and in the other there is no perception to match the objective reality.

Now this doesn't even address the other areas, where due to confirmation bias a person may have a false belief that is not born by the evidence, or social and cultural values that are also incorrect.

You keep stating that evolution does something it doesn't, care to explain your statement in terms of neurology, cognition, perceptions and other science?

Perceptions, stimuli, cognition and beliefs can all be false. They do not live ins some kantian meta space, nor do they acquire magic powers by just being biological.

How do you know that a hallucination is false? As far as I know a hallucination is an actual process in a brain; i.e. a hallucination is something, which happens in reality and as a process it takes place in reality.
A person experiences something which takes places; i.e. the person doesn't hallucinate a hallucination or are you saying that something which is false, isn't real? In other words a hallucination doesn't take place in reality and it takes places in a reality, which is false. I.e. there are 2 kinds of reality, the true one and the false one.

Let me explain it more:

1. The moon is made of rock and dust.
2. 2+2+=4
3. Killing is wrong.

#1 or the moon would be there without humans.
#2 or 2+2+=4 is only true if there are one or more beings capable of computation, whether it be humans or computers. It is objective in the sense that it doesn't involve feelings, emotions or personal bias, but it is subjective in the sense that it requires brains or computers.
#3 or killing is wrong is a first person subjective claim and it refers back to the person who thinks and/or feels that killing is wrong.

In general terms for the category of signs, all signs which refers to a positive or negative requires computation for it to be a positive or negative. So here is another example:
Someone to someone else: "You are thinking in an incorrect manner."
Now if you trace the sign/word "incorrect" back to where it has its referent; i.e. what is about, then you will notice that it traces back to the person who made the claim and not the person, who it is about.
As fallacies go, it is rather common for someone to commit the fallacy of reification; i.e. to treat a sign, which is about something abstract, as if the sign is about something concrete. E.g. "you are wrong" - the word/sign "wrong" is not about the person, which it refers to, because you can't see wrong. "Wrong" as a sign/word requires computation, cognition and so on.

In short, the moon would still be there without humans, but what wrong is about would not be there anymore, because there are no humans.

With regards

 

[David Mo]

However, as you and I both know, this is an inductive and hence probabilistic argument intended to settle a philosophical debate. This inductive argument is fairly weak milk for putting an end to the issue. We all know that sometimes there are advances that eluded us for centuries.

My argument is as strong as those against little fairies, mountain gnomes, flying dragons and eternal vampires. If you concede, this is enough for me.

So, I'll agree that your position is perfectly sensible without agreeing that every rational man is bound to concede the point. As William James said, this is an issue in which it may be reasonable to will to believe.

I don’t like the mention of believes. It is not a matter of believes but of rational preferences.
I don’t know what exactly a “rational man” is. But if some rational (or not) man affirms that his morality is objective, I hope he has some rational method to show this.

His choice, insofar as it is a moral preference, seems arbitrary to me. He could follow hedonistic egoism, utilitarianism, a list of rules from some book, and on and on, and not one of those systems has any claim on being more right than any other. Surely, it is reasonable to say that this is then an arbitrary preference (even if it can be explained by this or that motivation).

I see. You call what is not objective “arbitrary”. I prefer to speak of” preferences” because in preferences can be some degree of rationality and community. My moral preferences can be shared by other people, that is to say my moral community, and by adherents to a rational system of debate. Only in this space (agora) a moral debate has any sense.