[quote]nephorm wrote:
We don’t have to discuss all of moral behavior.[/quote]
That’s fine, assuming you agree that moral behavior isn’t restricted to the scope of social interaction.
I agree, but look at the standard you are using here. You seem to be defining morality as “that which tends toward our perfection”. Given that, not everything contributing to our “perfection” is essentially social. There are individual behaviors, having nothing to do with other people, which also could be categorized as contributing to our “perfection”.
That’s the only point I was trying to make, and it seems I may have misread your earlier posts to imply that you thought all morality was circumscribed by sociality.
Doesn’t recognizing the necessity of it imply that some “base actions” may be the most moral option, all things considered?
I contend that the choice for knowledge can be accompanied by the belief that the knowledge is unlikely to produce greater happiness.
For example, a woman may be happy in her marriage. Her husband leaves his cell phone home by mistake one day, and she now has the opportunity to review his text messages. She has never doubted her husband and has no reason to suspect him of cheating on her.
However, if she searched the messages and found one from a woman he hooked up with the night before, her world of bliss would come crashing down. Would the woman always choose not to review the text messages, even when she has no reason to doubt her husband? Would the same be true of every other woman in the world? Why or why not?
Sometimes we desire the truth for its own sake, even when that truth doesn’t lead to the greatest happiness. For some, the truth is preferable to an illusion regardless of the happiness provided by the illusion.
Why can’t you believe something to be good, without needing to believe it is based on some metaphysical universal law? I don’t believe in universal laws, but I still value love, truth, and courage in my life.
Aren’t you begging the question by assuming an objective standard for perfection? What if perfection is in the eye of the beholder?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
It doesn’t require the presence of other people to be called courage. Courage in battle is, as I said, paradigmatic for courage, which means that it is the situation in which courage is most easily understood, analyzed, and sensed.[/quote]
Sure. Again, I was just pointing out that courage and other cases of morality aren’t necessarily restricted to interpersonal situations.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We do not need references. Arguments are either logical and consistent and based on reason or they are not.[/quote]
We were referring to semantics, not to logical arguments. I was suggesting that although our definitions of morality differ, neither of us is any less a “philosopher” for having a different definition.
So who is the person interacting with if he is masturbating? Assuming he’s flying solo at the time, it seems like a good example of a behavior that some would call “immoral” but doesn’t require interaction with others.
That’s fine, but consequences can happen without needing to involve others.
The Catholic church claimed that the sun revolves around the earth, which agreed with their understanding of concepts. Does that mean their claim was objectively true?
Exactly. Rights are as relativistic as values, because they are informed by values.[/quote]
Well, no - rights are definitionally not relativistic, because as rights, they do not equivalents.
When something is a right it is elevated above the relativistic stew of preferences.
You are, as a matter of fact and definition, incorrect.
This doesn’t address the question - a democracy may choose to enact laws that restrict Natural Laws and you may have no power to enjoy those Natural Laws as a result…that says nothing as to whether Natural Laws may or may not exist.
Natural Laws may exist even when a society’s laws are in defiance of them. Keep up.
And? You made my case for me - if all we have are value-based preferences, then there is no such thing as Natural Rights.
So, then, you are of a mind that there are no Natural Rights that transcend individual values? Yes or no?
I don’t suffer pedantics very long. Values are no different than preferences if neither have transcendent qualities - if my value is no better than your value, the semantics over “values vs. preferences” is meaningless. Call them whatever you want - they aren’t rights.
You tend to dissemble into a fair amount of irrelevance when pressed - so a direct question: is there a natural right not to be enslaved that exists above and outside of individual and cultural preferences throughout humanity, or is it just one more value no better than the next value that says the opposite?
The point in asking was that you can’t conclude absolute morality exists without having objective proof for that conclusion.
I’m not trying to prove absolute morality doesn’t exist, since it is impossible to prove a negative. I’m only pointing out that there is no evidence for the idea that absolute morality exists.[/quote]
Well, let’s review. In response to Neph, you said:
[i]I’m not repulsed by the idea of objective morality, I just don’t believe it exists.
If you believe it exists, what is your proof? [/i]
You make “proof” a condition of “believing objective morality exists” as a counterpoint to Neph suggesting there is a “better way” for a society to live with itself, suggesting that without his “proof”, the belief he posited was not viable. Read what you wrote.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, no - rights are definitionally not relativistic, because as rights, they do not equivalents.[/quote]
What does equivalence have to do with whether or not a right is relativistic?
One government may declare a certain set of rights, while another government declares a different set of rights. By definition, these rights are relativistic. It is not logically possible for both sets of rights to be absolute, since they are contradictory.
What about the rights pronounced by a democracy that don’t fit your personal idea of “Natural Laws”? Are you suggesting these aren’t actually rights? And if so can you see how your logic is circular?
Yes. I’m arguing that so-called “natural rights” are in the eye of the government defining those rights. The U.S. Constitution declares that people have certain inalienable rights, but other constitutions have different declarations and it is impossible to prove one to be any more objectively valid than another.
Why must a value have “transcendent qualities” in order to be called a value? The definition of value is:
A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.
One can believe a principle, standard, or quality to be worthwhile or desirable without needing to believe it reflects some objective universal law.
[quote]is there a natural right not to be enslaved that exists above and outside of individual and cultural preferences throughout humanity, or is it just one more value no better than the next value that says the opposite?
[/quote]
How many times have I said that I believe values to be relative rather than absolute? I believe people have the right not to be enslaved, but my belief is no more objectively valid than someone who believes people don’t have the right not to be enslaved.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You make “proof” a condition of “believing objective morality exists” as a counterpoint to Neph suggesting there is a “better way” for a society to live with itself, suggesting that without his “proof”, the belief he posited was not viable.
[/quote]
Exactly. I asked Neph if he had any objective proof for his contention that society is better off believing in objective morality.
In the absence of proof, the null hypothesis is assumed to be true. Surely you read about that when you studied science in the library.
[quote]forlife wrote:
That’s fine, assuming you agree that moral behavior isn’t restricted to the scope of social interaction.
[/quote]
I confess I am uncomfortable with the way the term “moral” is being thrown about. Though the difference between “ethics” and “morals” ought to be incidental (being a difference of Greek and Latin for the same concept), I do not think this is necessarily the case.
The term “moral,” to me, seems more passive than the term “ethics,” which implies action (as its Greek roots would justify). Your use of the phrase “moral behavior” contains within it what seems to be your premise: that “morals” are really values (preferences), and behavior may be in accordance with those values or not.
At any rate, my issue with agreeing to “moral behavior” as encompassing actions or states of being that do not affect others is that such a usage, while common enough, does not seem to reflect what is really meant by morality or ethics. Let us take gambling.
Gambling, on its own, must either have negative consequences for the gambler (loss of goods, including general corruption of the psyche), negative consequences for the gambler’s family, or negative consequences for others, if we are to call gambling immoral.
One may assert that gambling is immoral because it is against divine mandate. But then, we are nowhere closer to objective moral principles, but accepting convention from a presumably omnipotent source.
One may assert that the action is immoral because it tends to corrupt the individual, but my sense is that this is meant, more often than not, in religious terms, because they mean by this some sort of measure of how fit a soul might be for heaven or to be near God.
So, while morality need not carry such Christian overtones, it makes me uneasy to use the term, and I feel as though precision is lost due to the ambiguity of the language. It is easier, rather, to speak of virtue, which is grounded in the thing itself.
A virtuous person will be ethical, and an ethical person will most likely be virtuous, but I prefer to preserve the distinction since the virtuous person will remain so in isolation, but would not seem to be ethical where no other human beings are present.
See my reasoning above. There is something peculiar to me about discussing obligations to others and obligations to the self as though they were identical.
Not “most moral,” but “least vicious.” Stealing, as conventionally understood, is simply base. A virtuous father, in extreme circumstances, might have to steal a loaf of bread in order to feed his family.
Or, in an even starker example, survivors of a disaster may be forced to eat the flesh of those who have died. Such actions are clearly base, would never (in a sound individual) be chosen for their own sakes, but may become necessary due to circumstance.
But those actions are not “moral,” insofar as they are not “morally good” because of the circumstances. Making the least vicious choice prevents what is taken to be a worse evil.
First you must give the motivation for searching the messages. One does not do such a thing idly. At any rate, your example does not prove what you want it to. If she has no reason to doubt him, and is not suspicious, then she has not chosen to reveal a truth that will make her unhappy, because choice implies knowledge of alternatives.
The alternatives she is aware of are: read the messages to satisfy curiosity, or don’t read them. In which case, the injury to her bliss is a consequence of her choice that she did not intend, contrary to your point.
If, however, she chooses to read the messages “no matter what they may contain,” such a choice implies suspicion on her part to begin with; in which case, she believes not knowing to be worse than knowing an unpleasant truth.
To be happy is difficult. Again, we may seek truth because we believe it to be preferable to ignorance; it relieves a pain.
What is your basis for believing it to be good? Something is noble, good, and beautiful because of how we are and might be, not because of preferences. On what basis do you value love, truth, and courage? That they are pleasant? In which case, would you still value them if they ceased to be pleasing to you?
Perfection is based in what we are. The perfection of a cat is different from the perfection of a human being. I recognize that human perfection (and teleology, for that matter) is unpopular.
But an analysis of what attributes we have as human beings, and how those might be developed to their utmost capacities, seems to me to be the surest path to perfection one could hope for.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - nephorm scares the shit out of me.
As a side note, I’ve enjoyed the debate with Nephorm so far. He is intelligent, educated, and makes good points that allow the discussion to move forward. He also avoids ad hominem attacks, which is a nice change from the norm around here.
[/quote]
Oh, he ad hominems alright. You’re just not bright enough to catch him. In fact, I’d lay money that he could lay into you with nothing but ad hominems, and it would be so far over your head that you’d wind up thanking him for it.
You are stubborn. Stubborn is not a substitute for intelligence. You are getting the crap kicked out of you, but you are too stubborn to just walk away. You conjur up visions of the bridge scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We do not need references. Arguments are either logical and consistent and based on reason or they are not.
We were referring to semantics, not to logical arguments. I was suggesting that although our definitions of morality differ, neither of us is any less a “philosopher” for having a different definition.[/quote]
Well if an argument we can’t even agree on the definitions we will use to make our argument then there is no argument. We won’t both be able to understand each other.
[quote]
So who is the person interacting with if he is masturbating? Assuming he’s flying solo at the time, it seems like a good example of a behavior that some would call “immoral” but doesn’t require interaction with others.[/quote]
God?
[quote]
That’s fine, but consequences can happen without needing to involve others. [/quote]
Yes. All actions have consequence. Immoral behavior only involves interaction. In this case it is god. God (gods) is a necessary component of spiritual interaction otherwise there is no need to consider the morality of spiritual action.
[quote]
The Catholic church claimed that the sun revolves around the earth, which agreed with their understanding of concepts. Does that mean their claim was objectively true?[/quote]
The above statement cannot even be evaluated as objective or not. To understand a concept is to be able to draw correct conclusions contained in or entailed by that concept. The first fallacy is assuming their claim agreed with any concept. The second fallacy is assuming the Catholic Church had a correct concept to base its claim.
What does equivalence have to do with whether or not a right is relativistic?
One government may declare a certain set of rights, while another government declares a different set of rights. By definition, these rights are relativistic. It is not logically possible for both sets of rights to be absolute, since they are contradictory.[/quote]
Sure one set could be absolute - just because one democracy sets up a framework of laws is no assurance that they are in compliance with an objective morality.
You categorically assume that just because a law is binding that there exists an equivalent between it and its opposite, evidenced by mere existence of both - as in, a law that protects freedom of speech is the moral equivalent of law that outlaws and punishes speech so long as we can find each one in existence.
This is your position - and as such, you have no basis to argue for any “rights” at all. You don’t believe in any.
It isn’t circular, Forlife, PhD - it is to say that existence alone does not create a presumption that the law is necessarily “moral”.
Existing laws may be in violation of Natural Rights. What are the “Natural Rights” is a separate question entirely - the initial point is that the existence of a law isn’t proof of its validity.
Fantastic - then based on your own nihilism, you have no moral objection to laws that execute gays for being gay, as these laws are just as valuable (that is, based on a worthwhile value) as laws protecting gays from such a penalty.
Well done.
[quote]Why must a value have “transcendent qualities” in order to be called a value? The definition of value is:
A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.
One can believe a principle, standard, or quality to be worthwhile or desirable without needing to believe it reflects some objective universal law.[/quote]
This is a straw man - I never said a value has to have “transcendent qualities” to be a value.
I said there was no difference between a value and a preference - and I noted that there is no such thing as “rights” if there be no objective morality. As such, all values are mere preferences, subject to someone else’s rejection of them.
Wow, impressive ignorance on display - and contrary to nearly every bit of positive philosophy from the ancient Greeks to the Enlightenment to the Founding Fathers.
Exactly. I asked Neph if he had any objective proof for his contention that society is better off believing in objective morality.
In the absence of proof, the null hypothesis is assumed to be true. Surely you read about that when you studied science in the library.[/quote]
Here we go. Apologies for the length, but apparently this wasn’t covered on the way to a PhD (!!!).
You originally say that you aren’t guilty of denying the antecedent, only to make a statement above that is exactly a case of denying the antecedent.
You test your idea: is there a natural, transcendent, objective morality (“Morality”)?
If there is empirical proof of Morality, then Morality exists.
If there is no empirical proof of Morality, we assume no such Morality exists.
As a matter of logic, you have, in fact, indulged in the fallacy of denying the antecedent. We know because you have operated on the basis of a faulty assumption - that what you are seeking to prove can be proven by scientific observation, and scientific proof is a necessary condition of Morality’s existence.
Incorrect - scientific proof in this case may be a sufficient condition of Morality’s existence, but it is not a necessary condition.
As stated earlier, just because we can’t prove Morality by way of scientific methodology is not evidence that Morality categorically does not exist - it may very well exist outside of Man’s ability to quantify it at the present moment via scientific methods.
As usual, your conclusions are based on the faulty idea that all knowledge begins and ends with their scientific validity - but science only deals with that which is falsifiable, and if science cannot falsify or validate a concept by its methodology one way or another, we have to look to other forms of knowledge to test the idea. Such is the case with Morality.
Morality may very well exist outside of our ability to prove it by the standard means of scientific observation, largely because it is a phenomenon that is not subject to typical falsification or refutation.
That is no problem - most people get this, and move off to consider Morality via other forms of knowledge (philosophy and logic, history, theology, etc.).
Not you, but then, that is nothing a few hundred trips down to the public library can’t fix. If you can take some time out from running around your house with your diploma as a cape, perhaps you can fill in the holes created by your miseducation.
Again and again - we see you ignorantly indulge the stupidity of Scientism. I once thought it was intentional ignorance - now I think you actually didn’t get much of an education at all.
So, absent scientific proof of Morality, and understanding that science isn’t an adequate vehicle to consider the question (see Demarcation Problems and the Scientific Method), we ask a different set of questions.
Now, this is basic logic - logic, of course, being applied to all forms of knowledge, not just science - accompanied by an understanding and a humility of the philosophy of science: that being, we reject the maxim of “if we can’t know it right now via our current methods, it is unknowable or false”.
No serious scientist/thinker operates that way, but then, I answered my own question - you aren’t a serious scientist/thinker.
And so, to your attempted insult: of course, you have no idea what my level of education is, as I haven’t disclosed it, but let’s do a recap - I have had to correct your understanding and clean up your slop of:
“Correlation versus causation”
Basic evolutionary biology w/r/t natural selection and the “Oscar Wilde” theory you proposed (hilarious)
The fallacy of denying the antecedent
The fallacy of appeal to authority
Piece of advice, Your Highness - looks like you may want to spend some quality time down at your local public library.
I wouldn’t stray too far into the territory of trying to sound so superior, Forlife - after all, if my education consists of nothing more than visits to the public library, given the above, you should be draped in shame…and asking for your money back on your PhD (!!!).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As stated earlier, just because we can’t prove Morality by way of scientific methodology is not evidence that Morality categorically does not exist - it may very well exist outside of Man’s ability to quantify it at the present moment via scientific methods.
[/quote]
Just to piggy-back on this… different kinds of inquiry require different kinds of method. To paraphrase Aristotle, one ought to seek as much precision as a subject admits; requiring demonstrations from a rhetorician seems about like accepting probable conclusions from a mathematician.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect - scientific proof in this case may be a sufficient condition of Morality’s existence, but it is not a necessary condition.[/quote]
There is no such thing as “scientific proof,” and science never attempts to comment on the existence of things. Science creates theories that predict observations. A good theory makes good predictions, but a theory can never be proven insofar as the next observation may defy prediction and falsify the theory.
Statements that do not make predictions are without meaning. Purely existential statements such as “Natural Rights exist” are meaningless not because they cannot be falsified with current methodology, but because they do not make any predictions at all.
What does it mean to say that Natural Rights exist? How would you even go about testing or rejecting this?
A good measure separating the meaningful from the empty is if the idea can be restated excluding the verb to be, or the verb “exist.” (See E-Prime.)
To illustrate – in wave particle duality, “The electron is a particle” is epistemological shorthand for “If I observe the electron in this manner, it behaves like a particle.”
The oft heard complaint that science isn’t an “adequate vehicle” to consider a particular question is code for “Fine, I can’t back up my convictions through observation, so I will just close my eyes and believe.” “Scientism” is a word made up by people who want to believe that which they cannot defend. No matter the situation, the only tools we have at our disposal are observation and logic.
[quote]Gael wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect - scientific proof in this case may be a sufficient condition of Morality’s existence, but it is not a necessary condition.
There is no such thing as “scientific proof,” and science never attempts to comment on the existence of things. Science creates theories that predict observations. A good theory makes good predictions, but a theory can never be proven insofar as the next observation may defy prediction and falsify the theory.
Statements that do not make predictions are without meaning. Purely existential statements such as “Natural Rights exist” are meaningless not because they cannot be falsified with current methodology, but because they do not make any predictions at all.
What does it mean to say that Natural Rights exist? How would you even go about testing or rejecting this?
A good measure separating the meaningful from the empty is if the idea can be restated excluding the verb to be, or the verb “exist.” (See E-Prime.)
To illustrate – in wave particle duality, “The electron is a particle” is epistemological shorthand for “If I observe the electron in this manner, it behaves like a particle.”
The oft heard complaint that science isn’t an “adequate vehicle” to consider a particular question is code for “Fine, I can’t back up my convictions through observation, so I will just close my eyes and believe.” “Scientism” is a word made up by people who want to believe that which they cannot defend. No matter the situation, the only tools we have at our disposal are observation and logic.[/quote]
Yes! Science is a method to predict observations. Science is inadequate to answer metaphysical questions. This requires a method of pure reason.
The oft heard complaint that science isn’t an “adequate vehicle” to consider a particular question is code for “Fine, I can’t back up my convictions through observation, so I will just close my eyes and believe.” “Scientism” is a word made up by people who want to believe that which they cannot defend. No matter the situation, the only tools we have at our disposal are observation and logic.[/quote]
Setting aside the dense and wandering text before it, you are, in fact, incorrect. Science isn’t the only discipline that “observation” and “logic” apply to - it’s just that Science is a particular form of inquiry, that like other disciplines, has limitations as to what it can answer.
Science is not appropriate to every question - see Karl Popper, etc. - and we are glad for it. Science cannot answer questions of morality - “is the practice of eugenics wrong, even though it can be rationally defended?” and so forth.
And “Scientism” is a made-up word to highlight the ignorance and hubris of those that would try and use Science as a form of secular substitute to Religion - and we have seen examples time and again in even these forums (i.e., read nearly anything Forlife opines on that he is ideologically wedded to).
As for your childish triumphalism that knowledge outside of science aren’t really adequate “defenses” to a concept, that stands in contravention to any belief in Human Rights that we think of today - so, as a threshold matter, you don’t believe in any existence of Human Rights, none of which can be backed up by scientific methodology?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Gambling, on its own, must either have negative consequences for the gambler (loss of goods, including general corruption of the psyche), negative consequences for the gambler’s family, or negative consequences for others, if we are to call gambling immoral.[/quote]
Clearly gambling can have negative consequences for the gambler, apart from any negative consequences for others. This doesn’t require a religious view, as the conseqences go beyond any theoretical spiritual implications. As you note, the gambler can lose his material wealth and can become psychologically addicted. Even if you ignore the negative implications for others, gambling is immoral by your own definition, simply by virtue of having negative consequences to the self.
I never suggested the obligations were identical, only that both fall under the umbrella of moral behavior.
But didn’t you use viciousness as your standard of morality earlier?
You’re essentially arguing that the pain of ignorance supercedes the pleasure of ignorance, so the wife is choosing to read the text messages out of a desire to reduce that pain.
I can see your point, but I think it is more than that. I mentioned the Matrix earlier. Yes, it is a fictional movie but it illustrates an important philosophical issue.
What if you came to a crossroads in your life where, for a brief moment, you were given a choice? You could take a red pill that would show you the truth and result in unhappiness. Or you could take a blue pill that would show you an illusion and result in happiness. In the case of the blue pill, you would never again question or doubt the reality of the illusion in which you believe. The “pain of ignorance” is negligible, since it is restricted to that small window of choice.
What would you do? I suspect the answer is different for each of us. In my case, I would take the red pill. I value truth for its own sake, even if the truth leads to less happiness in my life.
Some people escape into a world of alcohol, drugs, or psychosis because they prefer the pleasantness of their illusions to harsh reality. Others choose to live in that reality, even if doing so makes them less happy in the long run. Truth is as granular as happiness, in my opinion.
I value them because I find them beautiful, and because I value the positive consequences that they tend to create for myself and for others. None of that requires or even implies a metaphysical objective morality.
Perfection is based not in what we are, but in what we aspire to become. The model of perfection is a little different for each of us. Your view of the perfect man is probably different from my own view. Perfection isn’t an absolute standard.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well if an argument we can’t even agree on the definitions we will use to make our argument then there is no argument. We won’t both be able to understand each other.[/quote]
I agree that we should be clear on what we mean in our terminology, but that doesn’t mean one of us has an objectively better definition than the other. Definitions are inherently subjective
What about people that believe in a non-sentient god? For example, naturalistic pantheism:
Of course it can. We have a boatload of objective scientific information supporting the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Copernicus was right, and the Catholic church was wrong on this issue.
