Is Morality Natural?

[Gael]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.

Yes! Science is a method to predict observations. Science is inadequate to answer metaphysical questions. This requires a method of pure reason.
[/quote]

Example?

[forlife]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
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]

I agree, and have never said otherwise. Morality is inherently subjective, and there is no way to objectively define it.

[forlife]

Thunder, I think you are an intelligent guy and you often make good points worthy of discussion.

That said, your constant stream of ad hominems gets old. I see it again here and in your response to Gael. In my last post to you, I hypocritically resorted to a snide remark myself (about you visiting the library). Not only is it irrelevant to the discussion, but personal attacks lead to hard feelings and further entrenchment.

You are of course free to respond however you like moving forward. If you choose to do so with posts that are focused on the topic itself and are not peppered with personal attacks, I will enjoy continuing the conversation with you.

Regardless of what you decide, I appreciate the good points you have made and have no hard feelings on my end.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.

Yes! Science is a method to predict observations. Science is inadequate to answer metaphysical questions. This requires a method of pure reason.

Example?[/quote]

Science can answer questions such as how fast a rock will fall when we drop it from a tower of certain known height. No matter how hard we try reason will not answer it for us.

On the other hand there are certain questions that cannot be answered by observation. Economics is such a body of knowledge. With economics we must start with an axiomatic principle and work forward with logic from that starting point. Axiomatic truths can only be reasoned.

Geometry is an other such example.

[forlife]

[quote]Gael wrote:
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.[/quote]

That is true, just one clarification. A theory can predict observations, but still be about the “existence of things”.

For example, this week I was talking with one of the guys doing research with the Large Hadron Collider. It is the most powerful particle accelerator in existence, and the origin of the universe is among the research questions being studied. This addresses the “existence of things”, by positing hypotheses and making observations reflecting that existence.

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.

I agree, unless the theory of “Natural Rights” makes some claim about the objective nature of the universe which is measurable, either now or in the future. For example, if someone wants to hypothesize about the existence of a “god” that answers the prayers of the faithful, you could conduct an experiment where people pray over the sick and observe the effects of the prayer. (Side note: this experiment has been done).

To your point, if something cannot be measured it is impossible to draw scientific conclusions about the validity of the claim. Unless “objective morality” makes predictions that can be observed and measured, we can’t draw any conclusions about whether or not there is an “objective morality”.

The idea becomes nothing more than a belief system, no different in substance from fairy tales.

[forlife]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
On the other hand there are certain questions that cannot be answered by observation. Economics is such a body of knowledge. With economics we must start with an axiomatic principle and work forward with logic from that starting point. Axiomatic truths can only be reasoned.

Geometry is an other such example.[/quote]

I agree, as long as we’re clear that the term “knowledge” doesn’t necessarily reflect objective reality. There may be a body of “knowledge” about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this doesn’t mean the FSM actually exists in the physical universe.

[Gael]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.

Yes! Science is a method to predict observations. Science is inadequate to answer metaphysical questions. This requires a method of pure reason.

Example?

Science can answer questions such as how fast a rock will fall when we drop it from a tower of certain known height. No matter how hard we try reason will not answer it for us.

On the other hand there are certain questions that cannot be answered by observation. Economics is such a body of knowledge. With economics we must start with an axiomatic principle and work forward with logic from that starting point. Axiomatic truths can only be reasoned.

Geometry is an other such example.[/quote]

You can form a logical system and derive conclusions from axiomatic assumptions. But in the absence of observation (science) you can never demonstrate that the conclusions are true. You can only demonstrate that they follow from the axioms.

Since you mentioned geometry, I submit Euclid’s parallel line postulate as an example of an axiom that is not necessarily true leading to conclusions that are not necessarily true.

Faced with this barrier, the only way to make any progress is through scientific observation. And indeed, that is what happened: empirical evidence supporting general relativity allowed for the rejection of the fifth postulate.

And by the way, I was asking for examples of metaphysical questions, not for questions concerning axiomatic logical systems.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Gael wrote:
You can form a logical system and derive conclusions from axiomatic assumptions. But in the absence of observation (science) you can never demonstrate that the conclusions are true. You can only demonstrate that they follow from the axioms.[/quote]

Axiomatic assumptions are by definition true. They are analytic statements. For example, “Any two points can be joined by a straight line.” This is always true given the definitions of point and line. It is axiomatic and is true for Euclidean geometry.

[quote]
Since you mentioned geometry, I submit Euclid’s parallel line postulate as an example of an axiom that is not necessarily true leading to conclusions that are not necessarily true. [/quote]

As I stated above, in planar geometry Euclid’s axioms hold true. As soon as you start talking about generalized geometries (non-euclidean) these axioms must be rewritten or eliminated. Axioms always have to be true otherwise the knowledge based on them are incorrect. If axioms are not true then mathematics has no base.[quote]

Faced with this barrier, the only way to make any progress is through scientific observation. And indeed, that is what happened: empirical evidence supporting general relativity allowed for the rejection of the fifth postulate.

And by the way, I was asking for examples of metaphysical questions, not for questions concerning axiomatic logical systems.[/quote]

Why is science (observation) necessary to demonstrate truth? Observation still relies on being able to form a priori concepts that are not observable.

For example, space is an a priori concept; as is time. There is no way to observe space nor is it possible to observe time; on the contrary they are both necessary elements to even be able to make observations.

What is the nature of being? Tell me how observation can answer that question.

[Gael]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Gael wrote:
You can form a logical system and derive conclusions from axiomatic assumptions. But in the absence of observation (science) you can never demonstrate that the conclusions are true. You can only demonstrate that they follow from the axioms.

Axiomatic assumptions are by definition true. They are analytic statements. For example, “Any two points can be joined by a straight line.” This is always true given the definitions of point and line. It is axiomatic and is true for Euclidean geometry.[/quote]

Please provide a definition of point other than “point” and a definition of line other than “line” for which this axiom follows from such definitions.

[quote]Since you mentioned geometry, I submit Euclid’s parallel line postulate as an example of an axiom that is not necessarily true leading to conclusions that are not necessarily true.

As I stated above, in planar geometry Euclid’s axioms hold true.[/quote]

But is the geometry of our universe planar? This question cannot be answered without observation.

As soon as you start talking about generalized geometries (non-euclidean) these axioms must be rewritten or eliminated. Axioms always have to be true otherwise the knowledge based on them are incorrect. If axioms are not true then mathematics has no base.

I disagree. Mathematical axioms need not be true. In fact, you can build alternative bodies of mathematical knowledge on alternative sets of non contradictory axioms (that may or may not be true) and still form a valid logical system carrying axioms to their logical implications.

The result may not match preconceived notions of common sense, but this does not mean the system is without a base or a usefulness.

The reason such a system would not match common sense is because common sense is based on accumulated observations of one’s past.

[quote]Faced with this barrier, the only way to make any progress is through scientific observation. And indeed, that is what happened: empirical evidence supporting general relativity allowed for the rejection of the fifth postulate.

And by the way, I was asking for examples of metaphysical questions, not for questions concerning axiomatic logical systems.

Why is science (observation) necessary to demonstrate truth? Observation still relies on being able to form a priori concepts that are not observable.

For example, space is an a priori concept; as is time. There is no way to observe space nor is it possible to observe time; on the contrary they are both necessary elements to even be able to make observations.[/quote]

Why have you decided that space exists?

What is the nature of being? Tell me how observation can answer that question.

“Being” and “existence” are abstractions derived from observation. Observation comes first, and positing the existence of something that “is” as a conceptual aid is useful for making predictions.

Believing in space is one such an example. Such a model allows for us to make sense of sensory inputs and also predict how these inputs will change as we make motor decisions.

[Makavali]

[quote]forlife wrote:
but this doesn’t mean the FSM actually exists in the physical universe.[/quote]

Lies!

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Please provide a definition of point other than “point” and a definition of line other than “line” for which this axiom follows from such definitions.

But is the geometry of our universe planar? This question cannot be answered without observation.
[/quote]

The definitions of point and line are inherent in the trueness of the axiom. That is what makes it always true in Euclidean geometry.

It does not matter that we experience a multi-dimensional universe. It is impossible to represent such a universe without generalizing. Euclidean space is a simple generalization that cannot be taken as a whole. It is useful to a whole variety of applications tough it is incomplete. Through Euclidean geometry the laws of trigonometry make them selves known.

[quote]
I disagree. Mathematical axioms need not be true. In fact, you can build alternative bodies of mathematical knowledge on alternative sets of non contradictory axioms (that may or may not be true) and still form a valid logical system carrying axioms to their logical implications. [/quote]

Without the notion of trueness mathematics is not possible. How could we even evaluate the trueness of the a priori synthetic statement 1 + 1 = 2?

[quote]
Why have you decided that space exists?[/quote]

Space is a generalized abstraction. We are capable of experiencing a space-time universe (4D) but only intuition can lead to higher dimensions of space; therefore the concept of space must be a priori.

“Being” and “existence” are abstractions derived from observation. Observation comes first, and positing the existence of something that “is” as a conceptual aid is useful for making predictions.

Believing in space is one such an example. Such a model allows for us to make sense of sensory inputs and also predict how these inputs will change as we make motor decisions.

How do you make sense of input empirically? All input has to be perceived and reasoned into the logical forms of the mind. Not to mention that ones sense’s can trick them as much as their mind can. Scientists understand this which is why they cannot give precise numerical answers from observation to any of their theoretically precise predictions.

I take the Kantian perspective that even though all knowledge must start with experience it ends in reason. Experience does not, in fact, cannot render intuitive judgments.

[Regular_Gonzalez]

I don’t believe that morality is natural.

We simply have instincts that have evolved over millions of years to maximize our ability to pass our genes on. In some instances these instincts compliment what we consider to be moral, while in other situations they conflict with our morality.

[Bondslave]

Here is a good clip that attempts to answer at least a couple of the posts in this thread. He makes some valid points whether or not you agree with them.

edit: ok i failed at embedding the video

i give up…here is the link if anyone is interested enough to go look

- YouTube

[nephorm]

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
[/quote]

I do not believe I have provided a definition of what is or isn’t immoral. However, the mere fact that an action causes negative consequences does not make it immoral. What if one happens to be a very lucky gambler, gambles only a few times, and makes a lot of money while doing it? Is the action now moral? I do not know many people who use the term “immoral” who do not imbue it with religious connotations. As such, I am still uncomfortable with it.

But didn’t you use viciousness as your standard of morality earlier?

No. You want me to give a standard, whereas I am more interested in engaging the subject dialectically. And, again, I want to avoid the term “morality.”

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.

It depends what “truth” is being chosen. In such a situation, the person choosing must clearly think that it is better to know the truth than to remain ignorant; that is, the truth is worth knowing. A truth about the nature of existence, say, rather than a truth about the number of feathers on a chicken. Each is a truth, but I would not trade even lesser pleasures that are taken to be happiness to know the latter. If the truth is consequential, it follows that one recognizes that one may live one’s life more fully by knowing the truth. In general, I do not think one chooses truth out of bare allegiance to truth as a principle. I take further issue with your use of the term “happiness,” by which you seem to mean contentment rather than true happiness.

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.

Why? What is it about truth that makes it choice-worthy?

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.

But if these things tend to produce positive consequences - do they do so because of convention, or by nature? When one contemplates an action to judge its beauty, is that a faculty that virtually all human beings have, or is it dependent upon culture?

[quote]
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]

This is a very, very long argument that I do not have the energy to get into at this point.

[forlife]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I do not believe I have provided a definition of what is or isn’t immoral.[/quote]

Would you care to provide a definition so we can discuss from a common perspective?

I do not know many people who use the term “immoral” who do not imbue it with religious connotations. As such, I am still uncomfortable with it.

I’m not religious in any sense, but I still follow a personal moral code. If you prefer to call it something different though, I’m fine with whatever terminology makes sense to you.

I agree that something isn’t categorically moral or immoral, based only on the valence of outcomes from the action.

If the truth is consequential, it follows that one recognizes that one may live one’s life more fully by knowing the truth. In general, I do not think one chooses truth out of bare allegiance to truth as a principle. I take further issue with your use of the term “happiness,” by which you seem to mean contentment rather than true happiness.

By definition, if one values truth for its own sake that truth will be perceived as adding to the “fulness” of one’s life. But that doesn’t mean one believes the truth will lead to greater happiness. And by happiness, I’m not referring to contentment. I’m arguing that sometimes the truth is preferred, even when it doesn’t lead to long term true happiness. I think the truth has its own valence, and sometimes people prefer the truth to an illusion despite the cost to their happiness.

Why? What is it about truth that makes it choice-worthy?

For me, the truth is valuable for its own sake. I hate the idea of my life being based on a lie. I don’t want to go through life with my eyes closed to the way things really are. Ignorance and illusion have a negative valence, and truth has a positive valence in and of themselves, irrespective of any happiness that may result from them.

But if these things tend to produce positive consequences - do they do so because of convention, or by nature? When one contemplates an action to judge its beauty, is that a faculty that virtually all human beings have, or is it dependent upon culture?

I think convention contributes to the positive consequences that ensue from exercising our values, but is not solely responsible for those consequences. Some of it is due to the nature of the value itself. Society may reward loving others, but that is due to human nature as well as social convention. To some degree, convention is informed and created by human nature.

I agree that the perception of beauty can vary culturally, which is one argument in favor of ethical relativism rather than ethical absolutism.

[nephorm]

[quote]forlife wrote:
By definition, if one values truth for its own sake that truth will be perceived as adding to the “fulness” of one’s life. But that doesn’t mean one believes the truth will lead to greater happiness. And by happiness, I’m not referring to contentment. I’m arguing that sometimes the truth is preferred, even when it doesn’t lead to long term true happiness. I think the truth has its own valence, and sometimes people prefer the truth to an illusion despite the cost to their happiness.

For me, the truth is valuable for its own sake. I hate the idea of my life being based on a lie. I don’t want to go through life with my eyes closed to the way things really are. Ignorance and illusion have a negative valence, and truth has a positive valence in and of themselves, irrespective of any happiness that may result from them.
[/quote]

In view of this, I think we may be able to reach some common ground.

Happiness is difficult. It is rare to be happy, and happiness depends not only on one’s own actions and virtues but also on external things.

Your statement above seems to indicate that knowledge of certain kinds of truth is a necessary, but insufficient precondition of happiness, with which I agree.

What we seem to disagree upon is whether the person who chooses ignorance ought to be called happy. However, we might be able to agree that for those who require truth, attempting to cease in the pursuit of it is unpleasant. As such, the pursuit of even unpleasant truths is done for the sake of happiness, even if the outcome is unpleasant.

I think convention contributes to the positive consequences that ensue from exercising our values, but is not solely responsible for those consequences. Some of it is due to the nature of the value itself. Society may reward loving others, but that is due to human nature as well as social convention. To some degree, convention is informed and created by human nature.

If some values are informed by nature, then they transcend individual preferences, do they not?

[forlife]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Your statement above seems to indicate that knowledge of certain kinds of truth is a necessary, but insufficient precondition of happiness, with which I agree.[/quote]

I’m not arguing that knowledge is a precondition of happiness. I’m arguing that knowledge can be a voluntarily chosen substitute for happiness. I don’t think knowledge always leads to long term happiness, and in fact knowledge can interfere with it. Despite that, some may still choose knowledge.

I agree there is usually a positive correlation between knowledge and enduring happiness. I just don’t believe it is a perfect correlation, and sometimes it can even be an inverse relationship.

What we seem to disagree upon is whether the person who chooses ignorance ought to be called happy.

I think someone can be blissfully ignorant. Happiness doesn’t have to be informed in order to be real. It is an emotion after all, and need not reflect reality in order to exist.

However, we might be able to agree that for those who require truth, attempting to cease in the pursuit of it is unpleasant. As such, the pursuit of even unpleasant truths is done for the sake of happiness, even if the outcome is unpleasant.

This goes to the Matrix example, where the moment of potential unpleasantness is very brief. You only have a window of one minute to make your decision, and it would be impossible for the unpleasantness to last beyond that narrow window. Either you would choose the red pill, in which case you would receive truth and the unpleasantness would go away, or you would choose the blue pill, which would send you to perpetual blissful ignorance.

I have a hard time imagining the unpleasantness during that period of one minute to be so great that it would cause a person to choose the red pill. I would choose the red pill because of the truth it represents, not out of discomfort from the one minute of unpleasantness, which I would experience regardless of which choice I made.

[quote]If some values are informed by nature, then they transcend individual preferences, do they not?
[/quote]

I contend that nature and environment inform our individual preferences, which in turn inform our values.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not arguing that knowledge is a precondition of happiness. I’m arguing that knowledge can be a voluntarily chosen substitute for happiness. I don’t think knowledge always leads to long term happiness, and in fact knowledge can interfere with it. Despite that, some may still choose knowledge.
[/quote]

True story: I had a professor once who said he believed that happiness is indirectly proportional to how much knowledge one has – meaning more knowledge makes one less happy. When a few of my peers and I questioned him about why he always seemed so happy he replied, “What the heck do I know?”