If there were objective morality - how would you tell?

[!Kaggen]

i.e. physics has nothing to do with value judgments such as right or wrong.

That's not quite true. Physics underlies the processes that eventually make value judgements, but physics does not dictate or steer value judgments so as to favour one or the other.

At what point does the physical process of making a judgment end and this physics free part begin?
or
are you saying the syntax/rules are physics, but the context/meaning is physics free.

Hmm nitpick noted...let me add: concepts are our only way to communicate the laws of physics

But the concepts describe physics. they do not create or change physics. This is not so for morals or value judgments.

Whats the difference between the context/meaning in value judgments and the context/meaning in the laws of physics. As you stated above physics underlies process by which words/value judgments arise, its the meaning we give the words/value judgments that is not dictated by physics but dictated by values.
Even the numbers and symbols of mathematical equations need meaning, which we give them, before they tell us anything about the underlying laws they describe.

For me this problem is an important unaddressed epistemological problem.
We unconsciously have different standards for concepts based on there relationship to our understanding of physical laws even though all these concepts originate in our "subjective" minds. This caused lots of problems for physicists in the past when analyzing matter whilst conceptualizing particles. The experiments (percepts) gave results which could not be related to the concepts they gave to the matter they were analyzing.

When we act on morals or value judgments we still act within the laws of physics so I don't see how morals and value judgments create or change physics as you are suggesting above.

Not sure what your getting at as I have hot said anything about consciousness.

"concepts are not bound by objective physical laws" looks like it's pointed in that direction.

It was a suggested negative hypothesis to test whether morals and value judgments are predictable and therefore objective.
And from your post this is what you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Brainache]

I may be way out of line here, but; if there were objective morality- wouldn't we know it? In the same sense that we know about objective reality.

Disagreements over right and wrong would only occur through misunderstandings or ignorance, rather than different moral codes.

Then all it would take to sort out all moral dilemmas is education. If a teacher started teaching things that disagreed with the objective morality who could be fooled by it, if it was against nature? It would be like someone trying to tell me that circles are square or something, wouldn't it?

 

[Piscivore]

At what point does the physical process of making a judgment end and this physics free part begin?

There is no "physics free" part. Stop looking here for a backdoor for mysticism, there isn't one. But "morality" comes in somewhere around the point where part of a set of discrete correlated processes becomes influenced by feedback from its own functioning and is influenced not only by other process clusters directly, but also by how its own functioning impacts other, similar process clusters.

are you saying the syntax/rules are physics, but the context/meaning is physics free.

Nothing in this universe is "physics free".

Whats the difference between the context/meaning in value judgments and the context/meaning in the laws of physics.

There are no "context/meanings" in physics in general, they only apply subjectively to those process clusters we call "humans", and are produced by those process clusters exclusivly. There are no other physical processes that create meaning.

When we act on morals or value judgments we still act within the laws of physics so I don't see how morals and value judgments create or change physics as you are suggesting above.

You misunderstand. Concepts only describe physics, they do not create or change physics. Concepts do create and change morals or value judgments.

It was a suggested negative hypothesis to test whether morals and value judgments are predictable and therefore objective.

How would you test that hypothesis?

 

[!Kaggen]

At what point does the physical process of making a judgment end and this physics free part begin?

There is no "physics free" part. Stop looking here for a backdoor for mysticism, there isn't one. But "morality" comes in somewhere around the point where part of a set of discrete correlated processes becomes influenced by feedback from its own functioning and is influenced not only by other process clusters directly, but also by how its own functioning impacts other, similar process clusters.

That sounds rather vague and mystical if you ask me. Do you have a more scientific description of where morality comes in?

are you saying the syntax/rules are physics, but the context/meaning is physics free.

Nothing in this universe is "physics free".

Whats the difference between the context/meaning in value judgments and the context/meaning in the laws of physics.

There are no "context/meanings" in physics in general, they only apply subjectively to those process clusters we call "humans", and are produced by those process clusters exclusivly. There are no other physical processes that create meaning.

The word physics itself has a meaning and a context so how can you say this? In fact we have no evidence of "physics" without resorting to our human meaning for the word and the context in which we use it. You seem to want to learn the meaning of the word "physics" and the context of its use then pretend you never had to learn this in order to claim its existence independent of its meaning and context. Sorry but to be consistent either everything which humans have knowledge of and can communicate is subjective including physics and morality or it is all objective. You cannot have it both ways without being inconsistent.

When we act on morals or value judgments we still act within the laws of physics so I don't see how morals and value judgments create or change physics as you are suggesting above.

You misunderstand. Concepts only describe physics, they do not create or change physics. Concepts do create and change morals or value judgments.

Ok thanks for making that clear.

The point I originally was trying to make about the relationship between concepts and physics was not about the laws of physics being influenced by concepts, but the meaning which concepts give the symbols in the laws being influenced. This as I pointed out above and in my previous post is unavoidable and needs to be taken seriously.

It was a suggested negative hypothesis to test whether morals and value judgments are predictable and therefore objective.

How would you test that hypothesis?

A statistical survey of how different people conceptualized the right or wrong of killing across political, cultural and social divides could give data which might show a consistent response which allowed for a prediction of responses with further interviews of other people within a standard of statistical accuracy.

 

[Robin]

Kill 'em both, strap cameras to their souls, then see which one goes to Heaven, and which one goes to Hell.

Best answer so far.

 

[Robin]

Define "right" and "wrong." Please don't use synonyms like "good" and "bad," because that would be uninformative.

Shouldn't that be up to whoever is claiming that there is an objective morality?

 

[Dancing David]

Suppose there are two people who both believe in objective morality.

Person A says X is wrong.
Person B says X is right.

What method would you use to determine who was right or wrong?

Game theory, the one in which all players have equal footing in the system and not arbitrary rules based upon status and birth rights are most likely to be 'objective'.

Now that can even be extended in that if a player switches status then they should have equal treatment under the system. Therefore a king and a commoner are treated equally.

Regards wealth, if a commoner has equal wealth to a king and receives the same treatment then it is 'objective'.

Now this is a subjective standard based upon the idea that amongst humans all should have equal 'protection and rights' under the law.


So under such a system that is consistent, they follow the system to determine that be it mortal combat or whatever.

 

[Dancing David]

The word physics itself has a meaning and a context so how can you say this? In fact we have no evidence of "physics" without resorting to our human meaning for the word and the context in which we use it. You seem to want to learn the meaning of the word "physics" and the context of its use then pretend you never had to learn this in order to claim its existence independent of its meaning and context. Sorry but to be consistent either everything which humans have knowledge of and can communicate is subjective including physics and morality or it is all objective. You cannot have it both ways without being inconsistent.

Fingers, moon?
Map, road?
Words, reality?

You can not name yourself 'invincible' and get run over by a car at high speeds and assume that you won't be injured.

 

[Dancing David]

You do realize that if the first person is right, your not going to heaven even if you don't kill again

depends in some systems the more you kill the better your relationship with your god.

 

[!Kaggen]

Fingers, moon?
Map, road?
Words, reality?

You can not name yourself 'invincible' and get run over by a car at high speeds and assume that you won't be injured.

and you would not be able to describe that possibility without giving "invincibility" that meaning.

I am not arguing words/meaning create reality DD, but without words/meaning we could not even begin having any knowledge of reality.

 

[Piggy]

Does he claim that humans have evolved this genetic morality within the last couple of centuries? Because it seems to me that the entire course of recorded history, not to mention the behaviour of our primate cousins, tends to argue against at least these specific notions, doesn't it?

I'd go so far as to say that it seems to me morality has evolved culturally in order to overcome our "human nature".

No, he claims that the underlying moral mechanism has been the same for millenia. What changes is the scope of inclusion.

So, for instance, if the other tribe isn't human, if those people over there don't feel pain and sadness the way we do, if that group is wicked, if an almighty God has commanded us to destroy this village, then we don't extend to them the same moral equality we extend to our group -- we treat them more like objects or plants or animals.

But that boundary is flexible, and the evolution of civilization has gone hand-in-hand (though certainly not on a smooth curve) with a widening of that circle to include much larger groups, as well as other species.

Pinker's evolutionary/biological morality stems from the proposition that all humans share an essential human nature, which means that we all suffer alike. And that understanding allows for a truly universal and objective morality -- based on the facts of our common biology.

With this perspective, we can say that women are not politically inferior, enslaved peoples do not suffer less from pain and confinement, and so forth. Not as opinion, but as fact.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Didn't Marc Hauser show that morality is innate in other species? Oops...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/marc-hauser-harvard-profe_n_690797.html

 

[porch]

Got it in one.

Ach, it seems like I'm guilty of explaining your own joke to you. My apologies.

Now I'm trying to recall a fairy tale where an ugly person/creature turns out to be virtuous by the end, without being transformed into something physically beautiful. A frog in itself, as opposed to just a means to a prince. I can't come up with anything.

 

[Piscivore]

No, he claims that the underlying moral mechanism has been the same for millenia. What changes is the scope of inclusion.

So, for instance, if the other tribe isn't human, if those people over there don't feel pain and sadness the way we do, if that group is wicked, if an almighty God has commanded us to destroy this village, then we don't extend to them the same moral equality we extend to our group -- we treat them more like objects or plants or animals.

But that boundary is flexible, and the evolution of civilization has gone hand-in-hand (though certainly not on a smooth curve) with a widening of that circle to include much larger groups, as well as other species.

Pinker's evolutionary/biological morality stems from the proposition that all humans share an essential human nature, which means that we all suffer alike. And that understanding allows for a truly universal and objective morality -- based on the facts of our common biology.

With this perspective, we can say that women are not politically inferior, enslaved peoples do not suffer less from pain and confinement, and so forth. Not as opinion, but as fact.

Hm. Interesting idea. I'm still not convinced we all "suffer alike", since suffering itself builds up a tolerance, so to speak, but that's something to consider.

 

[Piscivore]

Ach, it seems like I'm guilty of explaining your own joke to you. My apologies.

Now I'm trying to recall a fairy tale where an ugly person/creature turns out to be virtuous by the end, without being transformed into something physically beautiful. A frog in itself, as opposed to just a means to a prince. I can't come up with anything.

You know, it seems like there is one, but I can't think of it either... let me know if you do.

 

[westprog]

No, he claims that the underlying moral mechanism has been the same for millenia. What changes is the scope of inclusion.

So, for instance, if the other tribe isn't human, if those people over there don't feel pain and sadness the way we do, if that group is wicked, if an almighty God has commanded us to destroy this village, then we don't extend to them the same moral equality we extend to our group -- we treat them more like objects or plants or animals.

But that boundary is flexible, and the evolution of civilization has gone hand-in-hand (though certainly not on a smooth curve) with a widening of that circle to include much larger groups, as well as other species.

Pinker's evolutionary/biological morality stems from the proposition that all humans share an essential human nature, which means that we all suffer alike. And that understanding allows for a truly universal and objective morality -- based on the facts of our common biology.

With this perspective, we can say that women are not politically inferior, enslaved peoples do not suffer less from pain and confinement, and so forth. Not as opinion, but as fact.

It also goes the other way. We no longer view the sacred tree or rock as being more important than the person sacrificed to it.

 

[Malerin]

Suppose there are two people who both believe in objective morality.

Person A says X is wrong all odd numbers greater than 7 are the sum of three odd primes.
Person B says X is right there is at least one odd number greater than 7 that is not the sum of three odd primes.

What method would you use to determine who was right or wrong?

What method indeed?

 

[nescafe]

I am not arguing words/meaning create reality DD, but without words/meaning we could not even begin having any knowledge of reality.

Ridiculous. Organisms with brains have been making decisions based on sense input and memory for hundreds of millions of years. I believe that counts as having knowledge of reality, no matter how inaccurate or unconscious.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Pinker's evolutionary/biological morality stems from the proposition that all humans share an essential human nature, which means that we all suffer alike. And that understanding allows for a truly universal and objective morality -- based on the facts of our common biology.

With this perspective, we can say that women are not politically inferior, enslaved peoples do not suffer less from pain and confinement, and so forth. Not as opinion, but as fact.

Wouldn't that depend on how much is "hardwired" into the brain and the level of "plasticity" of the brain in other areas?

 

[Dancing David]

and you would not be able to describe that possibility without giving "invincibility" that meaning.

I am not arguing words/meaning create reality DD, but without words/meaning we could not even begin having any knowledge of reality.

No, what do you see? Really do you see words or do you use them to convey the perceptions?

Don't the perceptions exist aside the words?
Tl;dr

We have all sorts of knowledge without words !Kagen, you are thinking that one tool is universal. It is not it is tool. It does not include the perceptions of the 5~7 senses. It can describe them, but it is not needed, except to convey them to another.

I think you are stuck on words, aphasic people with no language expression can still maneuver through the world, so they have knowledge.

There is much more to human reality than words and the hang up on objective/subjective. It is all the same. All the same. Same, same , same. Subjective is part of objective, objective is part of subjective.

I am serious !Kaggen, stop for a moment and consider that monisms are monisms they are exactly the same. There no way to discern BIVs (brains in vats), butterfly dreams, matrix realities, godthought and materialism.

There is no difference.

Stop and consider that. The world is persistent and consistent. There is no reason to draw the line at subjective objective except that subjective impressions are not always consistent predictors. It does not acre what words we use, it does not care at all about knowledge, it simply is. That is the first lesson of mysticism, the darkness within darkness the gate to all mysteries. The tao and the ten thousand.

You keep trying to pretend that there is some magic limitation because we have bodies and sensations, do you think that it makes a difference?

Why, an atom smasher exists, the events within it are captured by devices, they do not have ‘subjective experience’ they just are. We can interpret those results through a variety of means, visual, auditory, math constructs and values, you name it. It doesn’t matter, it is all the same. In fact much of the interpretation is done by unsubjective machines.

The words are just tools, they have meaning through common experiential referents, they are not any more than that. The fact that a hammer exists is not a limitation, it is tool, the facts that words exist is not a limitation it is tool. We have many tools !Kaggen, many ways to be reality and dance with it. I understand the fascination, I have spoken four languages in my life !Kaggen, I have practiced mysticism and walked on the face of god. But I came to understand words are just tool, they are not the windows of the world, they are the windows of communication.

But what people say here is true, you can call the tail of a dog a leg, it still has only four legs, irregardless. Knowledge is much more than words, or else you would walk into things all the time.