The Future of Moral Science

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Indeed. I am not criticizing your post. Tassman seems to not understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori. Murder is, by definition, immoral so looking for societies which consider murder to be moral is like looking for societies where the law is not legal.

Yes, murder is immoral is a tautology

 

[tsig]

Yes, murder is immoral is a tautology

Who decided that?

 

[phiwum]

Who decided that?

In the context of ethics, the usual meaning of "murder" is "immoral killing". Of course, you may not have this meaning in mind, in which case the trivial inference they drew would not apply.

By and large, nonetheless, when people are discussing ethics and the word "murder" comes up, this is what they mean.

Isn't it interesting that meanings of words are decided by convention, with no one person in charge? And it really is fascinating that an obstinate person (or egg) can insist that he has a different meaning in mind, and thereby make conversation more difficult for all parties involved.

Language is a marvelous mystery, innit?

 

[tsig]

Who decided that?

In the context of ethics, the usual meaning of "murder" is "immoral killing". Of course, you may not have this meaning in mind, in which case the trivial inference they drew would not apply.

By and large, nonetheless, when people are discussing ethics and the word "murder" comes up, this is what they mean.

Isn't it interesting that meanings of words are decided by convention, with no one person in charge? And it really is fascinating that an obstinate person (or egg) can insist that he has a different meaning in mind, and thereby make conversation more difficult for all parties involved.

Language is a marvelous mystery, innit?

The mystery is why you dodged the question.

I did not ask for a definition.

 

[phiwum]

The mystery is why you dodged the question.

I did not ask for a definition.

Murder means "immoral killing" and you still want to know who decided that "immoral killing" is immoral?

I want to know who decided that bachelors are unmarried. You tell me that, and I'll tell you who decided that murder is immoral. Same guy.

 

[Tassman]

Could you please explain what this means? I'm not trying to be funny, but I don't seem to understand what you mean when you say "merely semantics".

Does the same thing hold for claims as for arguments? Is the difference between "He ought to do X" and "He will do X" merely semantics? Does that mean that these two claims are essentially the same?

If so, does that mean the moral law "It is wrong to do X" is the same as the observation "People do not do X"? Or at least, "People generally do not do X"?

Finally, can you please confirm that you agree with the following argument, which I raised a few posts back?

Science does not arrive at ought statements.
The heart of a moral theory is ought statements.
Therefore, science does not discover moral theories.

(We can discuss that second premise if you're not convinced, but I suppose we should first figure out what you're saying about "merely semantical" differences between norms and descriptions.)

Well if you’re not “being funny” then I can only assume you don’t understand the argument as presented by me in Post #488 and numerous times elsewhere in this thread. Repeating it yet again will not make any difference apparently. You are free to disagree with the argument.

So if I kill someone outside my group/society it is not covered by moral behaviour?

In the tribal era, no! Check out Moses and his genocide of the Amorites et al. But, unlike the other primates our superior intelligence enables us to learn, grow and develop. So yes, nowadays with our developed concepts of human rights and the notion of crimes against humanity, the answer is yes.

 

[Tassman]

I suppose that there are those that consider meat to be murder. We have, without doubt, evolved in such a way that we are adapted to eat meat, but this in itself does not mean that it is moral to eat meat.

By definition “murder” is concerned only with unlawful killing of other human beings, not animals. But, that aside, we are carnivores by nature and no more guilty of murder (by which you presumably mean immoral killing) when we kill and eat meat than a lion killing a gazelle for food. Of course, as advanced creatures, concerns like humane killing have come to have moral import, just as unnecessary suffering has when exercising the death penalty - but killing for food per se cannot be immoral.

Indeed, it is an example, yet again, of where moral philosophers and others argue that evolutionary heritage cannot be relied upon for us to make moral decisions.

it is an example of the sort of academic nonsense one can expect from moral philosophers not grounded in the realities of our evolutionary heritage as arrived at by those in a position to know, namely scientists.

 

[Tassman]

Addressed to tsig:

Murder means "immoral killing" and you still want to know who decided that "immoral killing" is immoral?

You misunderstand the question, as seems to be becoming habitual with you.

Certainly “murder” is defined as: “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". But the question being asked is NOT how "murder" is defined in the dictionary but who decided upon the underlying morality of this and why. I would say that humans, as social creatures with an evolved interest in preserving social cohesion, have always regarded the unjustified killing of another member of the group as damaging to the social fabric of the group and thus immoral. After all Morality is merely a system of rules to facilitate community living.

I want to know who decided that bachelors are unmarried. You tell me that, and I'll tell you who decided that murder is immoral. Same guy.

You jest. This is not a moral question. Formal logic dictates that either the proposition is true, or its negation is true because they both can’t be true. End of story. This has nothing top do with morality.

 

[Meed]

Just as soon as you list some human societies which regard murder and assault within the group to be moral behaviour.

If by murder you mean killing people (not in self defense) then I could list plenty...

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So if I kill someone outside my group/society it is not covered by moral behaviour?

...
In the tribal era, no! Check out Moses and his genocide of the Amorites et al. But, unlike the other primates our superior intelligence enables us to learn, grow and develop. So yes, nowadays with our developed concepts of human rights and the notion of crimes against humanity, the answer is yes.

So you, Tassman, can with science decide that if I claim tribal morality, I am wrong. How nice The problem is that you can't use science to do that and that is what you don't understand.

 

[phiwum]

Well if you’re not “being funny” then I can only assume you don’t understand the argument as presented by me in Post #488 and numerous times elsewhere in this thread. Repeating it yet again will not make any difference apparently. You are free to disagree with the argument.

I only referred to being "funny" because it's a little humorous to ask for the meaning of "semantics".

But post 488 does not, indeed, tell me what you mean when you say it's merely semantic. I wonder why you prefer not to even try and explain this phrase.

I had a whole slew of other questions in that post you decided to ignore. I will repeat them here. I think that intellectual integrity requires that you address at least some of these questions.

Is the difference between "He ought to do X" and "He will do X" merely semantics? Does that mean that these two claims are essentially the same?

If so, does that mean the moral law "It is wrong to do X" is the same as the observation "People do not do X"? Or at least, "People generally do not do X"?

Finally, can you please confirm that you agree with the following argument, which I raised a few posts back?

Science does not arrive at ought statements.
The heart of a moral theory is ought statements.
Therefore, science does not discover moral theories.

(We can discuss that second premise if you're not convinced, but I suppose we should first figure out what you're saying about "merely semantical" differences between norms and descriptions.)

 

[phiwum]

You misunderstand the question, as seems to be becoming habitual with you.

Certainly “murder” is defined as: “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".

No, in the context of ethics, murder is immoral, not merely unlawful.

But the question being asked is NOT how "murder" is defined in the dictionary but who decided upon the underlying morality of this and why. I would say that humans, as social creatures with an evolved interest in preserving social cohesion, have always regarded the unjustified killing of another member of the group as damaging to the social fabric of the group and thus immoral. After all Morality is merely a system of rules to facilitate community living.

I'm afraid you're the one (and possibly also Tsig) who misunderstand the context, which was a discussion between Soba and Tommy. Let me give repeat the quote that prompted Tsig's silly question.

Indeed. I am not criticizing your post. Tassman seems to not understand the difference between a priori and a posteriori. Murder is, by definition, immoral so looking for societies which consider murder to be moral is like looking for societies where the law is not legal.

Yes, murder is immoral is a tautology

As we can see, the two were discussing the meaning of the word murder as immoral killing, not discussing which acts count as murder.

You jest. This is not a moral question. Formal logic dictates that either the proposition is true, or its negation is true because they both can’t be true. End of story. This has nothing top do with morality.

The conclusion that an immoral killing is immoral has nothing really to do with ethics either, just as the conclusion that unmarried men are unmarried has nothing to do with ethics, or the social convention of marriage, or anything really other than a plain application of simple logic.

Your highlighted quote, by the way, is a bizarre non sequitur, but I'd rather not bother digressing further here. Let's talk about whether science, which cannot (per your admission) derive ought statements, can tell us what morality requires.

 

[tsig]

No, in the context of ethics, murder is immoral, not merely unlawful.



I'm afraid you're the one (and possibly also Tsig) who misunderstand the context, which was a discussion between Soba and Tommy. Let me give repeat the quote that prompted Tsig's silly question.



As we can see, the two were discussing the meaning of the word murder as immoral killing, not discussing which acts count as murder.



The conclusion that an immoral killing is immoral has nothing really to do with ethics either, just as the conclusion that unmarried men are unmarried has nothing to do with ethics, or the social convention of marriage, or anything really other than a plain application of simple logic.

Your highlighted quote, by the way, is a bizarre non sequitur, but I'd rather not bother digressing further here. Let's talk about whether science, which cannot (per your admission) derive ought statements, can tell us what morality requires.

I am asking how murder got to be immoral. So far all you have said is that murder is immoral because it is immoral.

 

[phiwum]

I am asking how murder got to be immoral. So far all you have said is that murder is immoral because it is immoral.

Yes, because that's what the term means. Your question is about as sensible as "How come bachelors are unmarried? "

Now, charitably, you meant to ask, "Why are some killings immoral? That is, what distinguishes a morally acceptable killing from murder? " That is not a silly question, though it is irrelevant to the discussion that Soba and Tommy were having.

I don't know that anyone here has claimed they can give a clear answer to that question, nor that their arguments depends on such an answer.

 

[Tassman]

So you, Tassman, can with science decide that if I claim tribal morality, I am wrong. How nice The problem is that you can't use science to do that and that is what you don't understand.

You persist with the strawman that science can decide moral rules. This is not the argument. What science can do, but philosophy can’t do, is describe and test the foundational knowledge of what Homo sapiens are (i.e. social animals) from which we, as a society can infer right and wrong behaviour, namely what best benefits the social cohesion essential for the survival of the species

The ‘is/ought’ problem (so-called) is limited to deductive reasoning and is the prerogative of philosophy.

 

[Tassman]

I only referred to being "funny" because it's a little humorous to ask for the meaning of "semantics".

But post 488 does not, indeed, tell me what you mean when you say it's merely semantic. I wonder why you prefer not to even try and explain this phrase.

It does. It provides an example of the difference between a prescriptive argument and a descriptive argument and demonstrates that the only substantive difference is a semantic one.

I had a whole slew of other questions in that post you decided to ignore. I will repeat them here. I think that intellectual integrity requires that you address at least some of these questions.

I ignored them on the basis of your erroneous assumptions underlying them. But, if you insist:

Is the difference between "He ought to do X" and "He will do X" merely semantics? Does that mean that these two claims are essentially the same?

That’s not the argument.

If so, does that mean the moral law "It is wrong to do X" is the same as the observation "People do not do X"? Or at least, "People generally do not do X"?

It is not necessarily so. Again you’re mischaracterizing the argument.

Finally, can you please confirm that you agree with the following argument, which I raised a few posts back?

Science does not arrive at ought statements.

True.

The heart of a moral theory is ought statements.

Not really. This claim only applies to a deductive philosophical argument. And the problem is philosophy’s inability to arrive at a testable true premise from which to deduce a true conclusion. This has resulted in some bizarre moral theories throughout history, especially when deities have been involved. E.g. Peter Abelard's theory of the atonement in the 12th century, whereby he he makes an impeccably valid philosophical argument. Just that it's all nonsense.

Therefore, science does not discover moral theories.

Ah, the big finish.

What science does discover are testable premises upon which rules of behaviour (i.e. moral theories) can be reasonably inferred.

 

[Tassman]

No, in the context of ethics, murder is immoral, not merely unlawful.

Why do you think murder is immoral? This is what’s being asked. Please answer the question.

I'm afraid you're the one (and possibly also Tsig) who misunderstand the context, which was a discussion between Soba and Tommy. Let me give repeat the quote that prompted Tsig's silly question.



As we can see, the two were discussing the meaning of the word murder as immoral killing, not discussing which acts count as murder.

Again, the question remains “why do you think murder is immoral?

The conclusion that an immoral killing is immoral has nothing really to do with ethics either, just as the conclusion that unmarried men are unmarried has nothing to do with ethics, or the social convention of marriage, or anything really other than a plain application of simple logic.

Your highlighted quote, by the way, is a bizarre non sequitur, but I'd rather not bother digressing further here. Let's talk about whether science, which cannot (per your admission) derive ought statements, can tell us what morality requires.

See above.

Addressed to tsig:

Yes, because that's what the term means. Your question is about as sensible as "How come bachelors are unmarried? "

Now, charitably, you meant to ask, "Why are some killings immoral? That is, what distinguishes a morally acceptable killing from murder? " That is not a silly question, though it is irrelevant to the discussion that Soba and Tommy were having.

I don't know that anyone here has claimed they can give a clear answer to that question, nor that their arguments depends on such an answer.

Again you evade tsig’s (and my) question. The issue is not about definitions, but how the conclusion that "murder is immoral" was arrived at.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Tassman-

What part of "murder* is immoral because murder is defined as immoral" don't you understand?

*Here I am using the Courier New to represent the string of graphemes–i.e., the specific sequence of written characters–murder, not the act itself of one human's ending of another human's life

 

[angrysoba]

This is even given as an example of begging the question, which is a fallacious argument as it loads the conclusion in the premises:

In the fifth edition, Hurley gives the same example and apparently considers "all abortions are murders" to be a suppressed premiss of the argument. So, Hurley takes the complete argument to be:

Murder is morally wrong.
All abortions are murders. (Suppressed)
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
​

This is certainly a valid argument. Moreover, it doesn't appear to be circular, since the conclusion is not one of the premisses. Why, then, does it beg the question?

It begs the question because the word "murder" is not a morally-neutral word, such as "killing". All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders. A person who kills someone in self-defense, a soldier who kills in battle, or a policeman who kills in the line of duty, is not a murderer. So, the first, unsuppressed premiss is really unnecessary, as the argument is valid without it:

All abortions are murders.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong​

.

Or, to spell out what "murder" means:

All abortions are wrongful killings.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.​

Which is clearly circular and, therefore, valid. In the original argument, the moral wrongness of abortion has been smuggled into the premiss via the morally loaded word "murder". This is how real-life questions are often begged, that is, by using loaded language to conceal the fact that an argument is circular.

It's trivial to demonstrate that societies consider murder to be morally wrong, because that is what is means, but this tells us nothing about "evolved instincts". If you can demonstrate that all societies have evolved to consider all killing to be wrong, then you may have discovered something interesting, but unfortunately we know that this is not the case.

 

[tsig]

This is even given as an example of begging the question, which is a fallacious argument as it loads the conclusion in the premises:



It's trivial to demonstrate that societies consider murder to be morally wrong, because that is what is means, but this tells us nothing about "evolved instincts". If you can demonstrate that all societies have evolved to consider all killing to be wrong, then you may have discovered something interesting, but unfortunately we know that this is not the case.

Murder is morally wrong because it is morally wrong?

Seems a bit circular.