There is no "ought"

[Cavemonster]

Well, yes... you could go that direction with it, but there are other legitimate directions as well. For instance:

Murder implies malice... you are specifically attacking another person for your own selfish reasons, whether it be vengeance, hate, or personal gain. In war, you are not attacking the person, but fighting for a higher ideal... whatever that may be. Also note that soldiers on both sides of the conflict agree to participate (I won't get into civilian casualties here, I am also not addressing the draft). In the case of war, justification is not a matter of the ethics of killing, but is a question of the principle for which you are fighting.

There is a small bit of functionality implied here, but it isn't the main thing argued.

Yes, those are valid areas of discussion, but they don't replace the baseline reasons for the prohibition, on murder. The mitigating effects of the specific higher purpose, the effect of the soldier's agreement, all still need to be weighed against those baseline reasons we had the prohibition in the first place. Evaluating them in isolation from those original concerns could not be very fruitful.

 

[Manopolus]

Yes, those are valid areas of discussion, but they don't replace the baseline reasons for the prohibition, on murder. The mitigating effects of the specific higher purpose, the effect of the soldier's agreement, all still need to be weighed against those baseline reasons we had the prohibition in the first place. Evaluating them in isolation from those original concerns could not be very fruitful.

See my addition which was simultanious with your reply... basically it makes assumptions in order to cut past the unnecessary. Yes, for a more complete argument, function should probably be included in most cases.

 

[Cavemonster]

See my addition which was simultanious with your reply... basically it makes assumptions in order to cut past the unnecessary. Yes, for a more complete argument, function should probably be included in most cases.

Yes, I'll agree that not every "moral" discussion needs to retread every baseline issue. I'd say that your killing during wartime example though, does merit that level of detail, at least to set the stage at the beginning of the argument and agree on terms.

The big problem is that the majority of discussions in the moral realm, even here in this rational forum, don't include a basic agreement on the underlying reasons for a moral position. Look through any thread on eating meat, abortion, war, and there isn't even a widespread attempt to strip morality down to it's components, much less agreement on what those components are.

Even here morals are most often presented as bare assertion when it comes down to it, and competing bare assertions can't possibly come to agreement.

You can't get an ought from an is, but assertion is that you CAN get an "Ought for X outcome" and that any ought without that underlying construction is a meaningless statement.

 

[Manopolus]

Yes, I'll agree that not every "moral" discussion needs to retread every baseline issue. I'd say that your killing during wartime example though, does merit that level of detail, at least to set the stage at the beginning of the argument and agree on terms.

The big problem is that the majority of discussions in the moral realm, even here in this rational forum, don't include a basic agreement on the underlying reasons for a moral position. Look through any thread on eating meat, abortion, war, and there isn't even a widespread attempt to strip morality down to it's components, much less agreement on what those components are.

Even here morals are most often presented as bare assertion when it comes down to it, and competing bare assertions can't possibly come to agreement.

You can't get an ought from an is, but assertion is that you CAN get an "Ought for X outcome" and that any ought without that underlying construction is a meaningless statement.

I suppose I could second that. At first I read you saying that morals were strictly a matter of opinion unless you state a desired outcome. There are some outcomes which may be assumed, however... as in my first post (I suspect all humans can agree with those basics). That was my only real objection. I can see situations where even those which are assumed may be useful to note in a discussion.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The only way these words start making real observable sense is if we fill in the "if". We "ought" to act in such and such a way "if" we want such and such an outcome.

Yes. You are correct. The problem is an issue of practicality.

Everything that we “know”, we, in fact, only “know” to a certain degree. Within the experienced world, there is no absolute truth. There is no absolute falseness. There are only degrees of certainty for any belief.

Similarly, there is no “right” or “wrong”. The morality is based on the preferred outcome of the actions or intended actions, relative to the level of influence on the affected parties.

However, addressing thing in these accurate, but uncertain terms, becomes inconvenient. Without being able t say “this is true” or “this is false” or “this is right” or “this is wrong” we are relegated to saying that things have a certain degree of truth or righteousness or are conditionally true or right within certain given parameters.

Eliminating the use of the absolute terms would be more accurate, but it would require extensive conditional qualifiers every time such word are used making them essentially impracticable.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes. You are correct. The problem is an issue of practicality.

Everything that we “know”, we, in fact, only “know” to a certain degree. Within the experienced world, there is no absolute truth. There is no absolute falseness. There are only degrees of certainty for any belief.

Similarly, there is no “right” or “wrong”. The morality is based on the preferred outcome of the actions or intended actions, relative to the level of influence on the affected parties.

However, addressing thing in these accurate, but uncertain terms, becomes inconvenient. Without being able t say “this is true” or “this is false” or “this is right” or “this is wrong” we are relegated to saying that things have a certain degree of truth or righteousness or are conditionally true or right within certain given parameters.

Eliminating the use of the absolute terms would be more accurate, but it would require extensive conditional qualifiers every time such word are used making them essentially impracticable.

You're right in the broad sense.
But "This is true" or "This is false" are only hiding "to the best of my knowledge at this moment"

The same thing with "know". What these absolute words are hiding is only a smallish bit of subtext that most rational, skeptical people will agree on anyway. It can be discarded in conversation because with other thoughtful skeptics, the nuance can be assumed to be understood, and with others the conversation likely won't reach that level of depth.

'Right' and 'wrong' are fundamentally different because we don't all agree on what the hidden stuff is. Most people, even here, use those same terms, (right, wrong, ought, should) with very different baggage underlying it. And like any conversation with a failure to agree on terms, resolution of disagreement becomes nearly impossible.

When people argue with a bare assertion of morals, or a higher level moral derived from a bare assertion of a simpler moral, fruitful conversation becomes impracticable anyway.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

You're right in the broad sense.
But "This is true" or "This is false" are only hiding "to the best of my knowledge at this moment"

The same thing with "know". What these absolute words are hiding is only a smallish bit of subtext that most rational, skeptical people will agree on anyway. It can be discarded in conversation because with other thoughtful skeptics, the nuance can be assumed to be understood, and with others the conversation likely won't reach that level of depth.

'Right' and 'wrong' are fundamentally different because we don't all agree on what the hidden stuff is. Most people, even here, use those same terms, (right, wrong, ought, should) with very different baggage underlying it. And like any conversation with a failure to agree on terms, resolution of disagreement becomes nearly impossible.

When people argue with a bare assertion of morals, or a higher level moral derived from a bare assertion of a simpler moral, fruitful conversation becomes impracticable anyway.

You are correct. Good and evil are not absolutes (even within the limitations of absolutes of knowledge), but rather are realitive to goals. Whether or not somehting is "good" depends entirely on what you are trying to accomplish--what your values are.

 

[Trent Wray]

You are correct. Good and evil are not absolutes (even within the limitations of absolutes of knowledge), but rather are realitive to goals. Whether or not somehting is "good" depends entirely on what you are trying to accomplish--what your values are.

And they also partially tend to encompass things which effect a person's "freedom". "Evil" restricts, cripples, or hinders freedom, while "good" allows it.

Murder, rape, theft, assault, dishonest social dealings in business and politics, etc .... these are "against the law" and deemed "evil" or "bad" because when committed against another person, they can hinder their freedom and/or introduce hardship for a person that was uninvited. Even though their ultimate outcome my produce something desirable down the road. For example, the murder of a specific individual who generally gets away with injustice, theft to feed a hungry person, a nobel prize winner who was born as the result of a rape, etc and so forth. But what is generally considered "evil" is when these acts are unsanctioned, uninvited, or perpetrated on unsuspecting and/or unwilling victims who have not chosen to give up those liberties or freedoms.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

And they also partially tend to encompass things which effect a person's "freedom". "Evil" restricts, cripples, or hinders freedom, while "good" allows it.

Murder, rape, theft, assault, dishonest social dealings in business and politics, etc .... these are "against the law" and deemed "evil" or "bad" because when committed against another person, they can hinder their freedom and/or introduce hardship for a person that was uninvited. Even though their ultimate outcome my produce something desirable down the road. For example, the murder of a specific individual who generally gets away with injustice, theft to feed a hungry person, a nobel prize winner who was born as the result of a rape, etc and so forth. But what is generally considered "evil" is when these acts are unsanctioned, uninvited, or perpetrated on unsuspecting and/or unwilling victims who have not chosen to give up those liberties or freedoms.

Yes, but there is a difference between unlawful and immoral. Anything considered unlawful, should also be considered immoral. However, just because something is not unlawful (or even lawful) does not mean that it is moral. Law should restrict only that which prohibits another’s freedom. Law does not determine “good” or “evil”, but really only “allowed” or “not allowed”. Actions that are morally evil (for example, a Ku Klux Klan rally) are “allowed” by law even if they are “evil” to the society.

The purpose of law is distinct from the purpose of morality, although there is certainly a connection.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes, but there is a difference between unlawful and immoral. Anything considered unlawful, should also be considered immoral. However, just because something is not unlawful (or even lawful) does not mean that it is moral. Law should restrict only that which prohibits another’s freedom. Law does not determine “good” or “evil”, but really only “allowed” or “not allowed”. Actions that are morally evil (for example, a Ku Klux Klan rally) are “allowed” by law even if they are “evil” to the society.

The purpose of law is distinct from the purpose of morality, although there is certainly a connection.

My point here is that "moral" and "immoral" are meaningless words that mask a whole interplay of other concerns, some practical, some woo woo.

When you say that a Ku Klux Klan rally is morally evil, you could be using the term to cover a whole range of meanings.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You are correct. Good and evil are not absolutes (even within the limitations of absolutes of knowledge), but rather are realitive to goals. Whether or not somehting is "good" depends entirely on what you are trying to accomplish--what your values are.

Try telling that to some people.

 

[Cavemonster]

Try telling that to some people.

I see those people as some of the greatest impediments to the creation of the world that rational people want to see.

 

[Cavemonster]

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The moral error theorist thinks that although our moral judgments aim at the truth, they systematically fail to secure it. The moral error theorist stands to morality as the atheist stands to religion. Noncognitivism regarding theistic discourse is not very plausible (though see Smith 1980); rather, it would seem that when a theist says “God exists” (for example) she is expressing something that aims to be true. According to the atheist, however, the claim is untrue; indeed, according to her, theistic discourse in general is infected with error. The moral error theorist claims that when we say “Stealing is wrong” we are asserting that the act of stealing instantiates the property of wrongness, but in fact nothing instantiates this property, and thus the utterance is untrue.

Essentially I'm arguing for moral error theory. Right and Wrong are the same as God, the things they aim to explain are much better done through other routes.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Let's change the dialogue, here and elsewhere. Instead of talking about "morality" let's talk honestly about all the interesting underlying social, biological and psychological phenomena that that crude word is meant to envelope. Let's talk about self interest, both narrow and enlightened, both long term and short and extended. Let's talk about mirror neurons, not just as evidence that we don't need a god for morality, but as a fact in specific moral debates. Let's talk about memes, and innate and learned behavior and conditioning.

But please, let us not talk about what is right and wrong and what we should do. To me that's like talking about Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the elements, an outdated construction with very little descriptive power.

Do you realize you've made several ought statements here?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Nature, simply IS. You don't like it? Go somewhere else.

I did. I came inside.

I have plumbing and A/C and broadband.


Nature sucks.

 

[Cavemonster]

Do you realize you've made several ought statements here?

In the context of this thread, I made conditional prescriptions based on stated end goals. That's very different from normative statements or pure prescriptive statements. If you want conversation to be productive, then you should stop talking about morality. By adding that condition, it ceases to be a broad unmeasurable, frankly meaningless quality of "should" and becomes a claim about the real world, and likely outcomes of particular behaviors, something that can be observed.

"If you want to stay dry, you should wear a rain coat." Makes a claim about the observable world.

There is no ought on it's own, but there very much is an ought if.

 

[Trent Wray]

Yes, but there is a difference between unlawful and immoral. Anything considered unlawful, should also be considered immoral. However, just because something is not unlawful (or even lawful) does not mean that it is moral. Law should restrict only that which prohibits another’s freedom. Law does not determine “good” or “evil”, but really only “allowed” or “not allowed”. Actions that are morally evil (for example, a Ku Klux Klan rally) are “allowed” by law even if they are “evil” to the society.

The purpose of law is distinct from the purpose of morality, although there is certainly a connection.

Good points

 

[I Ratant]

So you're saying it's wrong to talk about right and wrong?

.
Yes, we ought not to do that, lest the more impressionable see beyond our guidelines of how they ought to behave themselves, and learn there are shades of gray between right and wrong.
Only our words ex-cathedra are meaningful.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm also not saying that normative and prescriptive statements can't ever be made within a productive conversation. Obviously we often have enough background agreement on what we mean by "good" and "should" for any casual conversation, or even most debates.

But for any debate such as the ones here that focus on a "moral/ethical" issue, such as political debates on what rights individuals "should" have, or about whether eating animals is "right", failing to unpack those words of the real underlying content only leads to a muddied debate and an almost willful lack of understanding.

And in any other debate, when disagreements about normatives and prescriptives arise, failure to abandon these terms for the underlying structures they signify is like building a wall between the participants.

 

[I Ratant]

So every court decision ever made has been illogical? Morality is the basis for many laws, you know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance appears like this:

Why can't I kill someone?
NOT YOU: Because it's against the law.
YOU: You can.
Why shouldn't I kill someone?
NOT YOU: Because it's wrong.
YOU: Illogical question.

I'm all for simplifying definitions, but I think the fact that humans are the only known species capable of morality means weshould ought not ignore it.

.
Fixt.