|
Juffo-Wup your approach here makes no loving sense to me. it sounds like you're essentially trying to approach ethics and morality like it's cognitive science, only using purely philosophical methods, or something. 
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
My philosophical experience consists of one high school level philosophy course from over a decade ago and some random internet surfing, so tell me if I'm talking complete nonsense. Even calling me a dabbler in philosophy would be an insult to actual dabblers in philosophy. Is this what is being argued about? I'm just trying to follow the conversation. -Assuming we are talking about the case where physical universe exists and has caused humanity to exist. -Assuming morality is a phenomena of human thought, that humans experience. -Assuming human experience is somehow linked to their physical interaction with their environment in the physical universe. ->Morality as a phenomenon is somehow linked to the physical interactions of humans with their environment. -Assuming that the general scientific consensus is reasonably true, and at least some kind of fundamental laws of nature apply to the universe. -Assuming that humans interact physically with their environment according to those laws. -Assuming that all humans are subject to the same laws of nature. ->Morality as a phenomena can be reduced to the physical laws that govern the interactions of humans with their environment. -->The "objective moral truth" if it can be called such is the same as the universal laws of nature, ie. whatever the scientific "theory of everything" ends up being, if we ever find it. --->All humans are applying the same "moral truth" of "theory of everything" to their current subjective situation. ---->All human moral judgements are equally right/valid in their current subjective situation via the "moral truth" of "theory of everything". ----->We're back to all morality being subjective? I've probably made a mistake in my logic chain somewhere since this is the first time I've tried to unpack a philosophical argument in text like this, so tell me if I'm wrong anywhere?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Inference to the best explanation for human normative discourse. Psychological facts about humans are also contingent, but we do not think that makes them merely subjective matters of opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
But why stop at 'human'? If you're now retreating to that category, because of inconsistency, what reason do you not have to go right back to each individual person? In which case, you've turned your objective morality back into a subjective one. Go you!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But why stop at 'human'? If you're now retreating to that category, because of inconsistency, what reason do you not have to go right back to each individual person? In which case, you've turned your objective morality back into a subjective one. Go you! If it turns out that nobody's normative language refers to the same thing, then yeah. But I don't think that's the case.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Zodium posted:Juffo-Wup your approach here makes no loving sense to me. it sounds like you're essentially trying to approach ethics and morality like it's cognitive science, only using purely philosophical methods, or something. Well, philosophy of cognitive science is my actual AOS so that probably colors my language and inclinations to some extent.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Oo Koo posted:->Morality as a phenomena can be reduced to the physical laws that govern the interactions of humans with their environment. I didn't totally follow these steps. I think that normative facts are a proper subset of all the physical facts, not that they're coextensive with the whole truth about the universe.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
You're missing the point: the boundary you're throwing up is totally arbitrary. What if all humans & zogberts have X in common, zogberts and plerfaloids have Y in common, and humans and plerfaloids have Z in common. What referent do you take as value? Or, if you just want to be anthrocentric or whatever, take this point: what you consider as the 'appropriate boundary' will determine what you referent is. What you, a priori decide, what is an inconsistency and what is merely a difference of opinion on the same fundamental moral value, will have implicitly declared by fiat that that is what value is. All the empirical legwork is then nothing but a way for you to disguise this initial choice, this initial assumption of yours, behind a lot of bullshit. Your assumption that there isn't an inconsistency among people is effectively you adopting an emotivist morality, without you actually realizing it - you're simply choosing the boundary that 'feels good' to you.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Well, philosophy of cognitive science is my actual AOS so that probably colors my language and inclinations to some extent. then I'll expect you to stop mixing them up from now on. rudatron's right, you're just drawing arbitrary borders and packing them up in a bunch of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I didn't totally follow these steps. I think that normative facts are a proper subset of all the physical facts, not that they're coextensive with the whole truth about the universe. -Assuming the previous argument. -Assuming the universe is complex interconnected system governed by fundamental laws of nature. ->The fundamental laws of nature give rise to all phenomena that exist in the universe by cascading upwards into more abstract and more contingent laws of nature, like for example whatever subset of those more abstract and more contingent laws of nature end up being responsible for governing human environmental interaction, thought and value/moral judgements. (psychology, neuroscience, something else?) Does that work?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:No, seriously when was the last time that any one has made a conscious decision over something they would consider a ethical dilemma? Like a legitimate issue where you were like " Is this ethical for me to do this?" rudatron posted:I've been lucky enough to never have been in such a situation, but I can't imagine many people are in such a situation all that often. If you're in anything but a leadership role, you already know exactly what's expected of you - it's more an issue of either being forced to do something you think would be unethical (the actual morality of the situation wouldn't be in doubt), or you're doing something you know is wrong but have some other interest in mind. The actual dilemma you're looking for, of having to choose between two options of unknown morality, would be quite rare. OK, my jaw is on the floor. I make conscious decisions over ethical dilemmas all the time. Should I really take time to answer these posts, or would it be better and kinder to do the washing up, or would it be better to insist my niece does it instead of shirking again? for example. (This post kept short because my answer to the first part was doubtful.)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Oh dear clone posted:OK, my jaw is on the floor. I make conscious decisions over ethical dilemmas all the time. Should I really take time to answer these posts, or would it be better and kinder to do the washing up, or would it be better to insist my niece does it instead of shirking again? for example. To me these seem like great examples of everyday ethical experience. How does this kind of experience get differentiated from other kinds?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Oh dear clone posted:OK, my jaw is on the floor. I make conscious decisions over ethical dilemmas all the time. Should I really take time to answer these posts, or would it be better and kinder to do the washing up, or would it be better to insist my niece does it instead of shirking again? for example. Yeah, I would have thought moral decisions are a normal part of everyday life for almost everyone. Do... do you not consider whether your actions are right or wrong that often? Referring to Hollismason and Rudatron here.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You're missing the point: the boundary you're throwing up is totally arbitrary. What if all humans & zogberts have X in common, zogberts and plerfaloids have Y in common, and humans and plerfaloids have Z in common. What referent do you take as value? To the first paragraph: yes that would certainly be strange if that were the case. But normative facts are not the only ones that admit of that possibility: imagine we meet the zogberts and discover that they refer to the set of phenomena we call tornadoes using two non-interchangeable terms each of which also refer to things that don't count as tornadoes. It would be strange to conclude as a result of this encounter that tornadoes aren't real. To the second paragraph, I want to make clear that I am not simply polling people for their answers to moral questions; I am trying to discover what people would want for themselves if they had all the relevant knowledge about themselves and their situation. This leaves open the possibility that there is a unified account of what people actually value even if, due to incomplete knowledge, they disagree on what is the right thing to do in any given situation. An aside: you put a few phrases in single quotes; was it your intention to attribute those words to me, as a paraphrase or something? Oo Koo posted:-Assuming the previous argument. I'm not totally sure, but I think I'm with you. So how do we get from there to the conclusion that people can't be mistaken about normative matters? (Also, I think I wouldn't say that the universe is 'governed by' laws of nature, so much as 'explained by' them. I don't think anything that is at issue here hangs on this distinction though.)
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Yeah, I would have thought moral decisions are a normal part of everyday life for almost everyone. Do... do you not consider whether your actions are right or wrong that often? Referring to Hollismason and Rudatron here. To add to this, I wonder how much stupid hypotheticals, like the trolley problem, corrupt ethics. Certainly I worry that they have an averse influence on thinking about more mundane ethics, the good life. Anybody else have an opinion about this?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
I don't find hypothetical exercises to be incompatible with everyday ethics? You use the same reasoning for both?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
I tend to think they put too much emphasis on the intuitionist method in ethics, but I'm also not inclined to think it's terribly pernicious or anything.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't find hypothetical exercises to be incompatible with everyday ethics? You use the same reasoning for both? I'm not sure that you do? Or you might hope and think that you do, but do you really experience everyday ethical situations in the same way as you do sitting in your chair thinking about some weird hypothetical? I'm also not saying that such hypotheticals are totally useless, just wondering how careful we should be.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Well, yes kinda. I derive my ethical instincts from my general ethical understanding.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, yes kinda. I derive my ethical instincts from my general ethical understanding. This seems sort of backwards to me? Maybe it's what you do, but when you're in a concrete situation where you 'do' ethics, do you really sit down, go 'hmm, yes, this is my general ethical framework', then take that framework and derive what you should do in that situation from it and then do it?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
I rely on my ethical instincts in the moment but those are informed by my general ethical framework, which is derived from sitting down and thinking, yes. I would also if time allows actually think about the correct thing to do more in-depth but if time does not I don't sit down and work it out, no. Like, my sense of what feels right comes from my instincts which are developed through thought exercises. I suppose at one point I had a different set of instincts but I can't remember it. Certainly nowadays it's derived from the cumulative results of my ethical experience. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:34 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Certainly nowadays it's derived from the cumulative results of my ethical experience. Great, this seems sensible. What I'm wondering (and what I've ask other people before without response) is: Is there is a difference between how we build ethical theory from cummulative ethical experience and how we build theories about other things from cummulative experience about those things? EDIT: With the thing that I'm going towards being: Shouldn't whatever makes you convinced their are chairs and rocks and things 'out there' from your experience of those things make you convinced there are ethics 'out there'. Or do you not believe there are chairs and rocks 'out there'? The Belgian fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
I might be misunderstanding you but ethics aren't things, so I don't believe they exist in the sense that things like rocks and chairs exist. Ethics are the thoughts which dictate my actions in some situations, they are affected by the effects of my actions on other people. If my actions produce an effect I don't like, that informs my ethics for the next time. This applies also to hypotheticals because I can think about what the effects might be as a result of certain actions in certain situations and from that I can help determine what he underlying end-goal of my ethics should be. The trolley problem, for example illustrates that my desire should not be to personally avoid killing people but to minimise loss of life in general. Which is not immediately obvious from everyday experience because I'm not presented with the consequences of my actions as they harm people indirectly. It's an exhortation to consider what the effects of your actions might be even if you don't think you will actually have to experience them firsthand, a good thing, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I'm not totally sure, but I think I'm with you. So how do we get from there to the conclusion that people can't be mistaken about normative matters? If we're studying morality from empirical point of view, then it all reduces down to whatever is physically happening in our nervous system to cause us to experience morality. One cannot know things that one doesn't know and having perfect knowledge about a situation is practically impossible. So any moral decision an individual makes is always valid as far as they know. They might act differently with more information but they're still doing what they think is right, which is explained by how their nervous system works, ie. the laws of nature. From what I managed to gather you're trying to derive objective morality from neuroscientific basis, by looking at what norms people agree on, why they do so and why human brains work in such a way that they seem to agree on them. But whatever morality you derive from that will always depend on what your sample population is. So the only way of getting anything resembling objective morality from that is either by just reducing that objective morality to the laws of nature and letting emergent behaviour of the system loose, which results in every individual moral actor doing their own thing. Or using every moral actor in the entire universe across all space and time, past and future as the sample population. Otherwise the best theory of morality one can get is just another contingent abstraction of the fundamental laws of nature which might tells us what things and norms a given population values and why they do so, but has nothing to say on whether those valuations are correct. Except in the trivial sense that populations like individuals are complex systems and act like they act because that's how the system works. So just like every moral action an individual takes is valid as far as they know, so is every moral action a population takes valid as far as that population collectively knows. Also feel free to tell me if I'm writing nonsense. I'm making things up and refining my thoughts as I go, so a lot of this is still somewhat half baked.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Yeah, I would have thought moral decisions are a normal part of everyday life for almost everyone. Do... do you not consider whether your actions are right or wrong that often? Referring to Hollismason and Rudatron here. What was the last actual what you would consider ethical decision where you were conflicted as to the correct course of action I work as a paralegal and I was previously a paramedic so yes I have made ethical decisions and debated the correctness of my options. Most people don't I mean that implies people in their day to day lives make multiple ethically debatable decisions and for a majority that's just not the case. My point though is that there is a practicality to ethics and as a pragmatist this is what I'm concerned with.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Oo Koo posted:From what I managed to gather you're trying to derive objective morality from neuroscientific basis, by looking at what norms people agree on, why they do so and why human brains work in such a way that they seem to agree on them. But whatever morality you derive from that will always depend on what your sample population is. I wouldn't say that I'm depending entirely on what norms people agree on, or would be inclined to endorse, or what-have-you. That kind of conscious report is certainly evidence of the sort of thing I'm interested in, but it also certainly is not decisive. Consider: setting morality aside, humans make normatively valenced decisions all the time. Any decision a person makes which they regard as being directed toward the improvement of their life is such a decision. Given their beliefs about the world at the time of that action, that action indicates something that they valued, which may or may not be something they would consciously report valuing. This kind of goal-directed behavior, which includes verbal and linguistic behavior, is taking place constantly all over the world. What can we say about this kind of behavior? Well, it might turn out that no general account if it can be given; that is, even if everybody had perfect knowledge, there would be little or no agreement between them about what is in their interest. This seems really implausible to me. I think there will most likely turn out to be a smallish set of things that are the objects of the vast majority of goal-directed behavior. Things like pleasure, autonomy, development of one's talents, the admiration of one's peers, developing genuine connections with others, etc. Now, obviously this account is at the mercy of empirical science, and if you think that is highly implausible that something like this is right, then fine. Otherwise, here's an imaginary dialogue: Skeptic: "Okay, you think values exist in the world? Prove it - show me one." Realist: "Well, based on people's behavior, we can conclude that they overwhelmingly value the following things: ..." S: "Yes, I accept that people value those things, but that doesn't make them values, not really, not objectively" But if that's not enough, what else could there be? So here's a question, if you're inclined to give the skeptic's response there: what would an objective value even look like, according to you? What would it have to do? If there were a God, could God make them? How?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:What was the last actual what you would consider ethical decision where you were conflicted as to the correct course of action There is abundant room for this in normal interpersonal relationships. Ethics should inform a great deal of your interaction with others.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:To the first paragraph: yes that would certainly be strange if that were the case. But normative facts are not the only ones that admit of that possibility: imagine we meet the zogberts and discover that they refer to the set of phenomena we call tornadoes using two non-interchangeable terms each of which also refer to things that don't count as tornadoes. It would be strange to conclude as a result of this encounter that tornadoes aren't real. Let me repeat: the boundary you set up, will determine, before you have even started your search (using whatever methods you want, polling, brain scans - doesn't matter one poo poo), what you find to be in common. If you take two people who are very similar, you will find a different thing in common than if you take all of humanity, and you will find a different thing in common if you take all life in the universe (in fact you'll find nothing in common, if you include all possibilities). Unless you can provide a logical, first principles, reason to limit your boundaries to some set (you can't), you have no justifiable reason to do what you're doing - your quest to find what is truly value, will simply be a reflection of what groupings you feel (not think) to be viable. Your 'discovery' of value is simply you stipulating what value ought to be, to yourself, without knowing it, through an overly convoluted means. This isn't a minor point: you said such normative values could be reduced, without remainder, into physical facts. Your strange obsession with tornadoes aside, different terminology does not change that they are both, in the case of tornado, referring to the same, underlying physical facts. The point I'm putting up, is that what those fundamental facts will be that determine what 'value' is, is going to be whole determined by whatever boundary you throw up. rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:36 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There is abundant room for this in normal interpersonal relationships. Ethics should inform a great deal of your interaction with others. You're going to have to explain on this one. For example, I went to a barbecue with my family at no point in my interactions with them was their a question of a ethical decisions that needed to be made in this interaction.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Oh dear clone posted:OK, my jaw is on the floor. I make conscious decisions over ethical dilemmas all the time. Should I really take time to answer these posts, or would it be better and kinder to do the washing up, or would it be better to insist my niece does it instead of shirking again? for example.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
I'm interested in determining if there is any sense to be made of a particular discourse. I think there is. And as it turns out, humans are the only participants in that discourse. They are also overwhelmingly the subjects of it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:You're going to have to explain on this one. For example, I went to a barbecue with my family at no point in my interactions with them was their a question of a ethical decisions that needed to be made in this interaction.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I'm interested in determining if there is any sense to be made of a particular discourse. I think there is. And as it turns out, humans are the only participants in that discourse. They are also overwhelmingly the subjects of it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:You're going to have to explain on this one. For example, I went to a barbecue with my family at no point in my interactions with them was their a question of a ethical decisions that needed to be made in this interaction. Most of my interaction with people involves topics or situations whereby ethics come into play. Yesterday for example I had to decide whether and how to intervene with a friend who is having some difficulty. Similarly there's a complex set of obligations towards most of the people I know which I have to decide whether I am able to fulfil at any given time. I would say probably about half of my interactions with others involve ethics in some way. But then perhaps I have an inordinate lack of... purposeless interactions with people? I almost always have a goal in mind.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
There are no absolutes at all, an absolute is a social construct of the purest kind, an abstraction of reality that helps our mind process the chaos of the universe well enough to turn it to our advantage, hope this helps OP.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So what? You're claiming that this discourse can be reduced without remainder into physical facts. What law of physics means that human beings must exist? There is none, it is a fluke of nature. If your objective morality is the result of nothing more than random chance, it cannot be consistent, and it cannot be truth. If there had never been any humans, it would be false that Sacramento is the capital of California. That does not mean there is now no fact of the matter about whether California's capital is San Jose or Sacramento.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
From the standpoint of political science you could argue that morality in a given society stems from that societies institutions and allows these instructions to operate and propagate efficiently. The institutions themselves arise by selective pressure in a given set of circumstances. The fact that marriage persists as an institution in incredibly secularised countries serves as an example to demonstrate that it is possible to uncouple a given institution from its justification in theory ("marriage is a holy Union approved by God") but still have that institution enforce morality that maintains itself.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
'California', 'Capital' and 'City' are not concepts reducible to physical facts, it is a fiction we all agree to because it's convenient to do so. Same with language, there is nothing tornado-ey about the word 'tornado'. That is, they are subjective impositions. I also can't help but notice you're ignoring the boundary determination objection totally.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Most of my interaction with people involves topics or situations whereby ethics come into play. Yesterday for example I had to decide whether and how to intervene with a friend who is having some difficulty. Similarly there's a complex set of obligations towards most of the people I know which I have to decide whether I am able to fulfil at any given time. Yes and how did you make those actual decisions? Like what was the thought process behind it? Did you sit down and write a pros and cons, did you discuss in depth the nature of good and evil? Or was there a intrinsic decision making process. Was it a complex process?How are you defining ethical dilemma? Why would you think about whether you should intervene with your friend who was having trouble? That's what I am asking because how does this view of values come into a practical application of ethics. If it has no practicality then why do we need to prove or disprove it? Here's a example from my life as a paramedic and it was something I would do often. I would mislead/lie/misconstrue facts to parents of dead children. One of the most common codes we ran where it was a cardiac event was on newborns. Now in my professional career I had never seen a newborn in the field resuscitation. Generally this was because of SID or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Now when we arrive on scene regardless of our actual medical knowledge we always worked the code. Whether the child was blue or not we worked it. Why? The infant was dead. There was nothing medically to be done. When parents would ask me whether their child was going to be okay I would have to say " We're going to do the best we can" then we would transport the child to the hospital. Where the child would be of course declared dead. Was I wrong for doing this? No, in my view I was not. In fact this is a "unwritten" code in EMS. You always work children and transport. It would have been far crueler to show up and then tell the parents that there was nothing we could do to help, then leave them with their dead child, and then have them deal with the disposal of the body. Now which would you do? Would you tell them their child is dead? Even when the child has what's termed lividity ( this is a sign that absolutely means death) So in your opinion why is this not unethical? Hollismason fucked around with this message at 04:26 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:33 |
|
|
rudatron posted:'California', 'Capital' and 'City' are not concepts reducible to physical facts, it is a fiction we all agree to because it's convenient to do so. Same with language, there is nothing tornado-ey about the word 'tornado'. That is, they are subjective impositions. Do you think that the fact that Sacramento is the capital of California is not reducible to any set of physical facts? That what makes it true is a non-physical state of affairs? That seems extremely strange. I answered the boundary determination question. I told you I'm interested in a particular domain of discourse. If you think there are zogberts involved in that discourse that I should be paying attention to, then you should let me know.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:23
|
|