|
Just because something is in everyone's interests doesn't mean it's right.
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:What we're talking about here is metaethics and what you're asking me to do is something like normative ethics or applied ethics. It is an obvious consequence of my view that arriving at anything like a general moral principle will take a concerted effort by researchers in various domains. I'm only here to provide a grounding for moral facts; I never said the facts themselves would be easy to get. Then that your theory of value is the way in which value actually works is literally an article of faith until such time as those assumed 'facts' can be discovered. Your grounding for moral 'facts' is based on the fact that physical facts reduce to other physical facts and, based on this, the assumption that moral 'facts' also reduce to physical facts. That assumption is baseless until such a time as it is shown that statements like "one ought not murder" or "one should not steal" actually do reduce to physical facts.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Just because something is in everyone's interests doesn't mean it's right. Is this, like, an article of faith for you, or what? Are there reasons to believe this? Zaradis posted:Then that your theory of value is the way in which value actually works is literally an article of faith until such time as those assumed 'facts' can be discovered. Your grounding for moral 'facts' is based on the fact that physical facts reduce to other physical facts and, based on this, the assumption that moral 'facts' also reduce to physical facts. That assumption is baseless until such a time as it is shown that statements like "one ought not murder" or "one should not steal" actually do reduce to physical facts. At no point in this thread have I endorsed either of those principles. If you think that a metaethical framework is valid only if it entails those principles, that's your own thing. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 17:54 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Just because something is in everyone's interests doesn't mean it's right. Sadly, that is clear to everyone but the dogmatic physicalist.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:As the world changes, so do facts about the world? That seems obvious, and doesn't really sound like a problem. Show me a picture of a moral truth without words or any description beyond the image itself.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Is this, like, an article of faith for you, or what? Are there reasons to believe this? Another way of reading that statement is: Just because everyone wants something, it doesn't follow that that action is ethical. Look, here's an example: I have a banana. I want to eat the banana. There is nobody else that is effected by the banana being eaten or not in any meaningful way. The only way to get from these statements to a ethical statement with regard to banana consumption is to bring in axioms about ethics. Maybe (as you have been doing) you assume that an action is good if it is in the interests of everyone involved. Maybe you have a religious belief that prohibits the consumption of fruit with thick skins. It doesn't matter, but once you bring in axioms like this, you're not engaging in objective observation of events in the world. Rather, you're making subjective judgement.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:you're not engaging in objective observation of events in the world. Rather, you're making subjective judgement. Why / where is the difference? I experience things as being a certain colour and I also experience things as being right or wrong. Where is the difference?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Another way of reading that statement is: Just because everyone wants something, it doesn't follow that that action is ethical. Oh, well, I don't think that. I don't think 'S wants P' and 'P is in the interest of S' are interchangeable salva veritate. I've been pretty clear (I thought) that I think people can (and often do) want things that aren't in their interest. Ratoslov posted:The only way to get from these statements to a ethical statement with regard to banana consumption is to bring in axioms about ethics. Maybe (as you have been doing) you assume that an action is good if it is in the interests of everyone involved. Maybe you have a religious belief that prohibits the consumption of fruit with thick skins. It doesn't matter, but once you bring in axioms like this, you're not engaging in objective observation of events in the world. Rather, you're making subjective judgement. First, there is a distinction between 'good' and 'right.' 'Good' belongs to value theory, 'right' belongs to normative and applied ethics. What you meant in that case was 'right.' Second, I feel like you haven't really read the majority of what I've written in this thread. I'm not "assuming" anything. I am "asserting" that it is an (admittedly defeasible) empirical fact about reference that that is what 'right' means. I assert this on the grounds that it is the best way to make sense of the otherwise baffling systematicity of normative judgments. Hollismason posted:Show me a picture of a moral truth without words or any description beyond the image itself.  (Okay, it's a fair cop, that's not actually a picture of 'a moral truth,' it is (prima facie) a picture of 'a value fact.' Turns out that moral theories are no more apt to being captured by a single image than are scientific theories. But the token value facts that are the ground of moral theory are all around us.) Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 19:05 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Oh, well, I don't think that. I don't think 'S wants P' and 'P is in the interest of S' are interchangeable salva veritate. I've been pretty clear (I thought) that I think people can (and often do) want things that aren't in their interest. Show me a token value fact that exists without a subjective opinion. You can't it's a impossibility. There is no such image you can show that in of itself represents a moral truth. It's unobservable. Moral truth does not exist because as society evolves so these " truths" evolve Your metaphysical fancy talk means nothing because you cannot demonstrate it's actual application.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Show me a token value fact that exists without a subjective opinion. You can't it's a impossibility. Show me an image of Beethoven's ninth symphony. If you can't, does that mean it does not exist?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Why does God have to be eternal? If there is a god, and thats a BIG if, that itself is evidence that another entity can create a Universe. Using this evidence why wouldn't God's Universe also be subjected to creation by another entity, and so on. Further evidence of us being in layers of universes and realities is Virtual Reality. If we can create worlds so can the beings in the next level up. Mathematically there is more proof that existence is infinite and we are just a bump on the road. Who caused that bump? Who caused the sun to emit light? There are rules in place that we try to explain using mathematics, we are also part of the equation. I find a lot of people who believe in God don't understand how even the basics of biology work, it is impossible to create something in your own image as everything is constantly changing. Evolution hasn't stopped, the human species goes through mutations in every birth. Our DNA is different from person to person. Homo sapien sapiens aren't even the pinnacle of Evolution, once AI can start programming itself to become better, then they are on the top, and God would've had to be an AI. Is God an AI? Is God an ever changing Universe that is infinite contained in another infinite universe? We are just in a mathematical simulation akin to a Mandelbrot set.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:Why does God have to be eternal? Sounds like schitzophrenic on drugs. A+, would read again.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Your metaphysical fancy talk means nothing because you cannot demonstrate it's actual application. O, I am slain!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Sounds like schitzophrenic on drugs. A+, would read again. I may be schizophrenic but it's turtles all the way down. Try DMT and you will see.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Show me an image of Beethoven's ninth symphony. If you can't, does that mean it does not exist? Insert image off sheet music, video of performance, sound of performance, etc... You're welcome to show me anything that shows or demonstrates a moral truth. Words are not in a sense tangible to proving truth as they reflect thought. Morality is absolutely subjective and requires context.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Insert image off sheet music, video of performance, sound of performance, etc..
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Is seeing the sheet music really the same as hearing the symphony to you? It takes a lot of training for the sheet music to mean anything at all, let alone invoke the symphony. The other two are not images. The point is that all of those things are empirically experienced. To claim that morality is only another sort of empirical experience requires a lot more and, if this thread is any indication, cannot actually be done, no matter how much some want to claim that it can.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:The point is that all of those things are empirically experienced. To claim that morality is only another sort of empirical experience requires a lot more and, if this thread is any indication, cannot actually be done, no matter how much some want to claim that it can. What more is required? I experience morality. Do you not? Blind people don't experience sight, but that has no impact on my ability to experience sight.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:What more is required? I experience morality. Do you not? Blind people don't experience sight, but that has no impact on my ability to experience sight. To hold the belief that murder is wrong is not an empirically discovered or verifiable belief. To believe that murder happens or murder is an empirical action is different that believing in a moral judgment about that empirical action. That this continues to not be understood is beyond me and it is a waste of time to continue to state the obvious in different ways in the hopes that those who have faith it isn't true will recognize its truth.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:To hold the belief that murder is wrong is not an empirically discovered or verifiable belief. To believe that murder happens or murder is an empirical action is different that believing in a moral judgment about that empirical action. That this continues to not be understood is beyond me and it is a waste of time to continue to state the obvious in different ways in the hopes that those who have faith it isn't true will recognize its truth. You keep stating this without any proof. I experience murder as wrong, and everyone I know does so too. Where is the difference with other kinds of experience?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:You keep stating this without any proof. I experience murder as wrong, and everyone I know does so too. Where is the difference with other kinds of experience? You're ignoring the empirical adjective, which is the key to my point. Are you seriously claiming that all experience is somehow empirical? Or that all experienced belief is equally justified? This is just getting worse and worse.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Are you seriously claiming that all experience is somehow empirical? !!!!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:You're ignoring the empirical adjective, which is the key to my point. Are you seriously claiming that all experience is somehow empirical? Or that all experienced belief is equally justified? This is just getting worse and worse. What I'm asking is, what makes some kinds of experience empirical, but not moral experience?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
A tangible consequence or observable phenomena. Thought is intangible and you are claiming infallibility, while I am claiming fallibility,but only in instances of observance of phenomena. You are literally claiming on faith that your statement is infallible and absolute. I am saying this argument is inconsequential because you cannot present evidence that it has any actual observable effect.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:!!!! The Belgian posted:What I'm asking is, what makes some kinds of experience empirical, but not moral experience? Experience via sensory stimulation. If you believe all experience is empirical then you have no grounds for morality whatsoever, as has already been stated and explained multiple times by multiple posters. If all experience is empirical then the "love" that someone claims to "feel" for their child is an illusion. That you "believe" that one empirical experience is more morally valuable than another is an illusion. This is our entire point. What you want to claim as moral realism is more rightly moral delusion.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Thought is intangible Oh dear! Are we all dualists now and I didn't get the memo? Zaradis posted:Experience via sensory stimulation. If you believe all experience is empirical then you have no grounds for morality whatsoever, as has already been stated and explained multiple times by multiple posters. If all experience is empirical then the "love" that someone claims to "feel" for their child is an illusion. That you "believe" that one empirical experience is more morally valuable than another is an illusion. This is our entire point. What you want to claim as moral realism is more rightly moral delusion. You've stopped engaging with my argument, but that's okay. I think The Belgian is an intuitionist rather than a naturalist about normative facts but I don't actually know.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Oh dear! Are we all dualists now and I didn't get he memo? Should we all have faith in dogmatic physicalism instead of cautiously agreeing with what is intuitive without the relevant knowledge to provide a clear answer?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:You've stopped engaging with my dogmatism, but that's okay. I think The Belgian is an intuitionist rather than a naturalist about normative facts but I don't actually know. FTFY
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Should we all have faith in dogmatic physicalism instead of cautiously agreeing with what is intuitive without the relevant knowledge to provide a clear answer? I don't feel like offering an argument for methodological token physicalism. I guess I assumed it was the default position of the posters here. So take my snarky question and make it a real question: is everyone but me in this thread a dualist? I'd be very surprised. E: Zaradis posted:FTFY I think you don't understand my argument. Would you mind reproducing it in your own words, just so I know we're on the same page? If you feel like it, I mean.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:You keep stating this without any proof. I experience murder as wrong, and everyone I know does so too. Great. So when you meet someone who says murder is not wrong, or who has a different definiton of 'murder' than you, who's right, you or them? If these 'moral experiences' are really representative of something in the world and not just something you believe to be true, then everyone's moral intuitions should be identical across all cultures and all of history. Can you demonstrate that to be true?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
"Homosexuality is wrong and this is a moral truth." I don't have any evidence but if you look at these token moral values you will see blah blah.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:Experience via sensory stimulation. If you believe all experience is empirical then you have no grounds for morality whatsoever, as has already been stated and explained multiple times by multiple posters. If all experience is empirical then the "love" that someone claims to "feel" for their child is an illusion. That you "believe" that one empirical experience is more morally valuable than another is an illusion. This is our entire point. What you want to claim as moral realism is more rightly moral delusion. To differentiate some experience as via one way and other as via another way is tho already implicitly accept a whole lot of stuff about the world. At first there is only experience. Could you maybe go through an example or something to show what you mean by empirical experience? Ratoslov posted:Great. So when you meet someone who says murder is not wrong, or who has a different definiton of 'murder' than you, who's right, you or them? If these 'moral experiences' are really representative of something in the world and not just something you believe to be true, then everyone's moral intuitions should be identical across all cultures and all of history. Can you demonstrate that to be true? Are you equally bothered by the colourblind?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:"Homosexuality is wrong and this is a moral truth." I don't have any evidence but if you look at these token moral values you will see blah blah. You know what? Same goes to you. Reproduce my argument in your own words and then tell me which part of it you object to. Otherwise I don't really feel like putting in the effort to respond to you, given the strong possibility that we're not actually talking about the same argument.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
I already did you claim to have evidence that there is a moral truth in the world, but you have no evidence. Moral Truth is a beach house for fascists.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Otherwise I don't really feel like putting in the effort to respond to you, given the strong possibility that we're not actually talking about the same argument. Ditto, given that I can't get anyone to do anything but spout red herrings when I make a point against their argument.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I already did you claim to have evidence that there is a moral truth in the world, but you have no evidence. Did I give any reasons why I think I have evidence that there are moral facts? Or did I literally just leave it at that? Also, are you calling me a fascist? That's very strange. Probably unnecessary. Zaradis posted:Ditto, given that I can't get anyone to do anything but spout red herrings when I make a point against their argument. Well, as both you and Rudatron have pointed out, I'm the one making the knowledge claim; the burden of proof is on me, and your position (agnosticism / skepticism about normativity, I think) is the default one if I fail to establish my premises and inferences. Yeah? Well, the 'burden of proof' sword cuts both ways - just as it is incumbent on me to provide a positive argument for my claim, it is incumbent on you to understand it and critique the most charitable version of it that you can reproduce. Anyway, since your argument is a critique of mine, I can only give an analysis of it to the extent that it engages with mine in a way that I can understand. Which, as I said, I'm having trouble with.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I can only give an analysis of it to the extent that it engages with mine in a way that I can understand. Which, as I said, I'm having trouble with. That goes for the both of us. At least we can agree on this point.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Are you equally bothered by the colourblind? Okay. So your answer to people having differing moral intuitions is that everyone who disagrees with the true morality is disabled in some sense. Great. So to repeat my question: quote:So when you meet someone who says murder is not wrong, or who has a different definiton of 'murder' than you, who's right, you or them?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:That goes for the both of us. At least we can agree on this point. What goes for the both of us? Are you saying, by way of insult, that you agree that I do not understand how your argument addresses mine, or are you agreeing, by way of admission, that you also don't know?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
I'm saying the argument that there are moral facts , truths tokens whatever lead basically to fascism. That's a cornerstone of a fascist government is to know a moral truth above all others. Not recognizing that your argument is fallible, has no evidence, and that there exists a truth beyond ourselves but you know it and your argument in of itself is the proof is kind of not great. You've been arguing for several pages with nothing but your own words and no evidence. I can demonstrate with evidence murder of some types are wrong, but still conclude this isn't always the case and it's only my subjective fallible values that I believe this.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:55
|
|