There is no "ought"

[Radrook]

Completely agree, Cavemonster.

And though I do agree that in general it's cumbersome and largely unnecessary to say exactly what your 'if' is in a 'should... if' statement, I also agree that in debate situations like we have here, it's often very useful to go ahead and put the whole thing down in black and white.

Completely amuses me btw that we have people responding to the idea that morals only exist in the minds of intelligent social beings with lines like 'but I have them so they exist, QED, sheesh'

But I honestly don't understand how the OP gets misread as a call for anarchy...

It gets misread that way because when examples of human abuses of other human rights are mentioned the response is that there are no human rights and that good and evil are mere constructs of the mind.

 

[Radrook]

Completely agree, Cavemonster.

And though I do agree that in general it's cumbersome and largely unnecessary to say exactly what your 'if' is in a 'should... if' statement, I also agree that in debate situations like we have here, it's often very useful to go ahead and put the whole thing down in black and white.

Completely amuses me btw that we have people responding to the idea that morals only exist in the minds of intelligent social beings with lines like 'but I have them so they exist, QED, sheesh'

But I honestly don't understand how the OP gets misread as a call for anarchy...

It gets misread that way because when examples of human abuses of other human rights are mentioned the response is that there are no human rights and that good and evil are mere constructs of the mind. No one is denying that mind is necessary for perception and concept of evil to exist. However, the behavcioir which would be thus classified regardless of presence of mind or not. In that sense evil is mind-independent. For example, the miindless forced torture of creatures by others for the sheer fun of it would be evil whether perceived or not. Unperceived it is a behavior that would fall under that category. Since we are perceiving creatures we tag that unperceived behavior as evil regardless of where it is occuring.


The only way we can call it amoral is to place our minds on hold, deny that infliction of unnecessary pain is wrong, deny that the abuse of others rights is wrong. Deny that rape-murder and theft is wrong simply because it is committet in a mindless vacuum.

 

[Cavemonster]

For example, the miindless forced torture of creatures by others for the sheer fun of it would be evil whether perceived or not.

Really?
Cockfighting, bear-baiting, bullfighting, eating shrimp and other animals alive have all been widely enjoyed by various humans in various cultures. They don't think it's evil.

By what basis do you say that it's evil? Please answer this question honestly and directly.

 

[Radrook]

Really?
Cockfighting, bear-baiting, bullfighting, eating shrimp and other animals alive have all been widely enjoyed by various humans in various cultures. They don't think it's evil.

By what basis do you say that it's evil? Please answer this question honestly and directly.

When you ask a sentient reasoning creature that question the creature will answer in accordance with his perceptions because perceptions are all the creature has to permit evaluation. To seek a response based on anything other is to require the impossible. Like requiring a computer to function without programing.

But to prevent any further confusion let's agree on what we mean by evil. Give me your definitition
on since that's the definition we will be using in our discussion. Here is the dictionary definion.

e·vil   /ˈivəl/ Show Spelled[ee-vuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun
6.that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10.anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12.a disease, as king's evil.
–adverb
13.in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him.
—Idiom
14.the evil one, the devil; Satan

Of all the above the causing of injury or unnecessary pain either phsychological or physical will be my starting point. Of course if we use different criteria we will endlessly talk past each other. So a disagreement on meaning will make discusssion pointless.

The doctrine that an act is never immoral when the agent thinks it right has the drawback (or the advantage) that it excuses almost all the acts which would be commonly condemned. Very few people deliberately do what, at the moment, they believe to be wrong; usually they first argue themselves into a belief that what they wish to do is right. They decide that it is their duty to teach so-and-so a lesson, that their rights have been grossly infringed that if they take no revenge there will be an encouragement to injustice, that without a moderate indulgence in pleasure a character cannot develop in the best way, and so on and so on. Yet we do not cease to blame them on that account. Of course it may be said that a belief produced by a course of self-deception is not a genuine belief, and that the people who invent such excuses for themselves know all the while that the truth is the other way. Up to a point this is no doubt true, though I doubt if it is always true. There are, however, other cases of mistaken judgment as to what is right, where the judgment is certainly genuine, and yet we blame the agent. These are cases of thoughtlessness, where a man remembers consequences to himself, but forgets consequences to others. In such a case he may judge correctly and honestly on all the data that he remembers, yet if he were a better man he would remember more data. Most of the actions commonly condemned as selfish probably come under this head. Hence we must admit that an act may be immoral, even if the agent quite genuinely judges that it is right. (§ 21 ¶ 1)http://fair-use.org/bertrand-russell/the-elements-of-ethics/section-iii

 

[Cavemonster]

If you'd been reading this thread, my meaning would be clear.

Why don't you answer my question?

 

[Radrook]

If you'd been reading this thread, my meaning would be clear.

Why don't you answer my question?

Correct. If I haven't read the thread carefully I have no business requiring you to clarify or define.
My apologies.

 

[Cavemonster]

Correct. If I haven't read the thread carefully I have no business requiring you to clarify or define.
My apologies.

If you're truly interested, you'll go back and read the thread.

 

[Lithrael]

Correct. If I haven't read the thread carefully I have no business requiring you to clarify or define.
My apologies.

I usually don't like it when people get all 'no, I did already' etc when someone asks for clarification, but seriously, in this case the misunderstanding in the argument/derail you're trying to bring up is exactly what the OP is about.

 

[MikeSun5]

What measurements do you use to determine if a particular action is "right"?

Majority rules?

What differentiates your values from anyone else's and how can you tell which ones are right? If there is no possible way to test different opinions of right and wrong, how can they be said to exist?

There are plenty of tests designed to test morality. And since morality - and the feeling of right and wrong - is simply PART of us, we can't ignore it.

In society, are morals not usually determined by the majority? I'm sure there were cannibals in Borneo who didn't like to eat people, just like there are people in America who don't see anything wrong with killing people for fun. Because those views were not held by the majority of their populations, they could be considered abnormal, and even immoral, by their standards.

We can say that there are some widely held, even near universally held moral beliefs, and we could argue that some beliefs are nearly inevitable as emergent from the biological ground of human beings. This is a tenuous position, a tough one to assemble evidence for, and ultimately inapplicable to any moral discussion. Any moral truths that might fall into this category, by definition would be absolutely safe from debate, so aren't really relevant to this discussion.

Why can't statitistics be evidence?

Anyway, I like how you conveniently managed to exclude an argument that might provide a perspective contrary to yours. Nice move.

"Widely held," and "near universally held," do not mean "unanimous," so I wonder why you'd consider those to be "absolutely safe from debate."

 

[Cavemonster]

Majority rules?

If you're defining morality as what the majority agrees to then it's absolutely not in conflict with my OP. Obviously a majority opinion exists, but that's not what we're talking about. If we were, every moral thread on this site would be solved when someone posted an opinion poll on the matter.

There are plenty of tests designed to test morality. And since morality - and the feeling of right and wrong - is simply PART of us, we can't ignore it.

You misunderstand, I'm saying there is no evidence based, empirical, way to test an action to see if it is right or wrong. See the is/ought problem.

Why can't statitistics be evidence?

Because in this case, calling popular opinion evidence of anything but popular opinion is an appeal to popularity. Again, if you define morality as popular opinion, then I have no problem with it. It's not the standard use of moral terms though and it isn't what I'm addressing.

Anyway, I like how you conveniently managed to exclude an argument that might provide a perspective contrary to yours. Nice move.

"Widely held," and "near universally held," do not mean "unanimous," so I wonder why you'd consider those to be "absolutely safe from debate."

If a value were nearly universally held, then it wouldn't be hotly debated. Look at the issues that spawn moral debate: abortion, death penalty, responsibility to the less fortunate. There's only a reason to debate when there are significant groups with difference of opinion. We don't have many debates about whether molesting and then killing children is morally acceptable.

 

[Complexity]

I don't cede anything to a majority, let along determining what is right and wrong.

If anything, majority opinion on such matters is highly suspect.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Well, if the aforementioned prescription was just an opinion of yours, then I won't claim it is absurd. However, you seem to state it as if it was some universal fact, which would be absurd since you have nothing to back that up.

You did well to use the word seem. I did not state or purport to state a fact, let alone a universal fact ( whatever that may be). Stating facts is a different business from issuing moral prescriptions. Our ability to use language allows us to do both of these — and a great deal besides.

Bare assertion. You just admitted that there is no (or does not have to be a) basis for that statement, and yet you claim it is true irregardless of what anyone thinks about it. That can only be true if there is some non-human agent, force or law of nature to back up your claim. Since there isn't, it's just your baseless opinion.

Several things to disagree about there.

First: the business of basis. We cannot derive prescription from description alone. ( Cf Hume's point about ought not following from is) In that sense, I did not admit that there is no basis for what I said: in fact, I suggested that the demand for a descriptive basis is misconceived.

Second: the question of truth-value. As I see it, if moral disagreement is possible, then moral statements have quite enough truth-value to be going on with. As Damon Runyon might have said: if this is not true-or-false, it will do until true-or-false comes along.

Third: your assertion that I must invoke some non-human agent, force or law of nature. Well, no, I needn't — as long as I can tell the difference between prescription and description.

Perhaps it would help if you explained what you mean with "It is right"?

I mean it pretty much as most of us do— until philosophy beckons.

 

[MikeSun5]

You misunderstand, I'm saying there is no evidence based, empirical, way to test an action to see if it is right or wrong. See the is/ought problem.

Gotcha.

Of course, morality is crazy like that. You can't prove/disprove a moral standpoint any more than you can prove/disprove you like the taste of apples better than oranges.

I just figured a good way to be able to at least have a baseline moral viewpoint upon which you can base other arguments would be the viewpoint of the majority.

Look at the issues that spawn moral debate: abortion, death penalty, responsibility to the less fortunate. There's only a reason to debate when there are significant groups with difference of opinion. We don't have many debates about whether molesting and then killing children is morally acceptable.

Well, like we mentioned earlier, I guess we have come to the part of the discussion requiring more specific definitions... How you define "significant" makes a huge difference. People who are actually affected by abortion or the death penalty are not a huge number -- in the scheme of things, the percentages are quite small.
Your example about molesting and killing children actually lends to my point. If you believe there is no right or wrong, then why aren't there many debates about molesting and killing kids? Because that behavior is considered "wrong" by an overwhelming majority, and warrants no debate. That is the socially accepted position. Killing kids is not cool.

It would seem that your moral stance problem depends on the significance (or size) of the group to which the stance is applied. If the group is big enough (ie: the killing-kids-is-bad group), their stance is apparently accepted as morally "right." If the group is small by comparison (like the abortion-is-bad group), then the issue can be hotly debated.

 

[Cavemonster]

If you believe there is no right or wrong, then why aren't there many debates about molesting and killing kids? Because that behavior is considered "wrong" by an overwhelming majority, and warrants no debate. That is the socially accepted position. Killing kids is not cool.

Mike,
Once again, I'm not arguing that public opinion doesn't exist.

Most people in a debate do not use public opinion as synonymous with moral truth. You're not using a standard or a useful definition. Once again, if you were then every morality debate on this site would end the moment someone posted a reputable public opinion survey. Ironically, the majority do not share your definition.

And that's essentially the problem. Some people use morality to refer to public preference, some to personal preference, some to practical actions for longer term broader societal benefit, and some to arbitrary rules set down as a meme (The Bible, or Mao etc). They all act as though they were discussing the same "right" and "wrong" but really they are making drastically different statements using the same words. If you want to talk about public preference, talk about public preference.

 

[Cavemonster]

Oh, and Mike.

I have direct experience of my flavor preference for apples. Since it's defined as an experience, that is the strongest evidence there can be.

As for your preference for apples, we have brain imaging technology that can map your pleasure centers. Combined with wider research we can say that either we can tell what flavor you like, or else your brain is drastically different than all other humans.

Aside from that, through behaviorism we can say that it doesn't make any difference to us if you like apples or you just act in every way like you do. From your mom packing you a snack, to an advertising agency trying to sell you a fruit drink, there is no difference between you enjoying apples or just consistently acting as though you do.

For the world outside, the phenomenon of your qualia isn't meaningfully distinct from your actions surrounding your qualia.

So, more broadly, from a functional perspective, we very much can measure your food preference in many ways. Any objective "good" is unfalsifiable more in the way that a god claim is.

 

[MikeSun5]

If you want to talk about public preference, talk about public preference.

Again, gotcha. I was just suggesting overwhelming public preference for a baseline moral standpoint.

As for your preference for apples, we have brain imaging technology that can map your pleasure centers. Combined with wider research we can say that either we can tell what flavor you like, or else your brain is drastically different than all other humans.

We also have brain imaging technology that can map your moral and emotional centers. That article also kind of explains where I was attempting to lean with my posts: since human emotion is included in making moral decisions, attempting to apply only logic to them doesn't always work.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yes, I do understand moral relativity created by differences in socialization from one society to another. What's taboo in one society might be acceptable in another. For example the circumcision of little girls is common in some parts of Africa while in most of the rest of the world is considered child abuse and an atrocity. Brother and sister marriages among Egyptian royalty was common. Yet we view it as taboo. Even the acceptance of human sacrifices by the Aztecs was viewed as a righteous thing. So the concept of moral relativity isn't new to me. What realy irks me is the concept that we should view all behaviior as essentially amoral because it. That seems rather weirdnciple. Since it flies in the face of the categorical imperative prinicple.

We should view all behavior as amoral because it is. That doesn't imply that one is to go around committing atrocities under the justification that morality is relative. This is the never ending argument I've been having with people like Kevin Lowe: One thing is understanding that morality is a human construct and thus, relative and abstract. One completely different thing is the question of how we should behave in society.

It's like chess: If we're gonna talk objectively and scientifically about chess, we have to understand that it's a game with made up rules, which were made by humans. That doesn't mean that, because the rules are made up and are not objective, that that means we're claiming that one should cheat on chess and then when the opponent complains, we reply by saying "I can cheat because these rules were made up, so what's the point?". It's a false conclusion which most people seem to make. These are two different questions: "What is the nature of morality?" and "How should we behave morally within society?". Two completely separate questions. One doesn't affect the other.

 

[Cavemonster]

We also have brain imaging technology that can map your moral and emotional centers. That article also kind of explains where I was attempting to lean with my posts: since human emotion is included in making moral decisions, attempting to apply only logic to them doesn't always work.

Again, I'm not asserting that there is no biological basis for moral feelings. And again, I think you're confusing my statements about measuring objective moral truths with measuring human moral thoughts.

 

[Cavemonster]

These are two different questions: "What is the nature of morality?" and "How should we behave morally within society?". Two completely separate questions. One doesn't affect the other.

Ron, I'm going to disagree with you there.
Different answers to that first question definitely affect the answers to the second.

For instance, if your answer to "What is the nature of morality?" is "It's the set of rules handed down by God in the Torah, and he'll punish you if you don't follow them" then your answer as to how to behave morally would be to do what the book says and the finer points would flow from that perspective.

Actually, within the context of moral anti-realism "How should we behave morally within society?" isn't a meaningful question by itself, (even aside from the word "morally") because it contains a "should" without an "if". It needs a modifier to provide that "if" which the answer to the first question provides. In the case above "If we want to avoid punishment by God, how should we behave morally within society".

 

[Cavemonster]

Again, gotcha. I was just suggesting overwhelming public preference for a baseline moral standpoint.

That's one approach towards a descriptive ethics, but this thread is about normative morality.