Subjectivism

[Ihateusernames]

In my Robotics thread I diverged briefly into the same topic we've been discussing here, because I deemed it relevant over there too.  I'll quote myself from over there:

I will take an approach to moral responsibility that can be applied to robots as readily and appropriately as to humans, and isn't dependent on any assumption as to the truth or falsehood of determinism or the condition of the subject as being or not being an automoton.  This approach, a legalistic one, will derive moral responsibility from moral competency, which I'll define as, "having (1) the intellectual capacity for moral reasoning; (2) the intellectual understanding of moral reasoning's goals and methods; (3) no developmental anomalies that made the formation of conscience impossible or implausible; and (4) no history of one's brain being abused by self or others."  It should be obvious that all four tests could be applied to a robot as readily and appropriately as to a human.

Now, the question to ask, from the perspective of this thread, would be - By what right, objectively speaking, do I define moral responsibility in the above manner?

The answer would be - By no right whatsoever, objectively speaking.  There is no fact about nature that would support my definition.  I simply made it up.  It's arbitrary.  It represents a decision, not a discovery.  If I were to debate on behalf of my definition, I wouldn't do so on the basis of its accuracy, for a criterion of accuracy cannot be applied to decisions.  Rather, I would debate on behalf of its justice, utility, social appropriateness, sanity, and authenticity, for these are criteria that can be applied to decisions.  But these criteria are themselves arbitrary, because they follow from five prior decisions, those being, the decisions to favor justice, to favor utility, to favor social appropriateness, to favor sanity, and to favor authenticity.  I can't defend those those decisions objectively.  I favor those five principles because favoring them is what I want to do.  Emotion and appetite make those five principles appeal to me.

I'm sorry this is just ridiculous.  You are in essence defining a new term and then saying "Man I wish subjectivism could possibly be "true" but seriously, it can't possibly be true in any meaningful sense, because its essence is saying that there is no such thing as truth..."

Saying that there is no objective truth, is like shooting yourself in the foot, because apparently you assume the statement "there is no objective truth" is true, right? if not, what are you saying in the first place?

-Ihateusernames.

[Inevitable Droid]

Saying that there is no objective truth, is like shooting yourself in the foot, because apparently you assume the statement "there is no objective truth" is true, right? if not, what are you saying in the first place?

I'm not saying there's no objective truth.  Of course there's objective truth.  But morality isn't part of it.  There's no objective morality.  Only subjective.  Science continually teaches us about objective truth.  Science can't teach us anything about morality.  We make morality up for ourselves, each of us independently, albeit some of us pretend to be doing otherwise, and some of voluntarily make it a team effort, collectively agreeing on a moral code.

[wildfire_emissary]

Saying that there is no objective truth, is like shooting yourself in the foot, because apparently you assume the statement "there is no objective truth" is true, right? if not, what are you saying in the first place?

I'm not saying there's no objective truth.  Of course there's objective truth.  But morality isn't part of it.  There's no objective morality.  Only subjective.  Science continually teaches us about objective truth.  Science can't teach us anything about morality.  We make morality up for ourselves, each of us independently, albeit some of us pretend to be doing otherwise, and some of voluntarily make it a team effort, collectively agreeing on a moral code.

 I am inclined to agree with you, Sir. Sam Harris, however, has good point, too here:http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

[Inevitable Droid]

I am inclined to agree with you, Sir.

Welcome to my world, then.

Sam Harris, however, has good point, too here:http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

His argument is specious.  He assumes I should care about suffering, and then talks about how science illuminates the causes of suffering and how to remove those causes.  It is certainly true that science illuminates the causes of suffering and how to remove those causes.  But to say that I should care about suffering - yours, mine, or anyone's - and call that an objective truth, is specious.  I may well care about your suffering, but if I do, it's for reasons of emotion and/or appetite.  Even my concern for my own suffering is a matter of emotion and/or appetite.  All concern, without exception, is emotional and/or appetitive.  All concern is subjective.

To use different words - morality begins with motivation.  Nothing is good, to me, except that I am motivated toward doing it, experiencing it, having it, knowing it has occurred or is occurring, or knowing it has existed or exists.  Nothing is bad, to me, except that I am motivated toward not doing it, not experiencing it, not having it, knowing it hasn't occurred or isn't occurring, or knowing it hasn't existed or doesn't exist.  Motivation is subjective.

I am a scientarian.  This means I am motivated toward doing what scientists do when I consider truth or falsehood.  It also means I am motivated toward experiencing the learning that comes from reading about science, and also am motivated toward knowing that the activities of science continue to occur, the latter in turn motivating me to speak up as science's advocate when the occasion presents itself.

Once I deem something good, I then consider how to accomplish, experience, have, or be confident of the perpetuation of that which I deem good.  Likewise, once I deem something bad, I then consider how to avoid accomplishing, avoid experiencing, avoid having, or be confident of the cessation of that which I deem bad.  Questions of how are questions best put to science, or at least science's methods.  Empiricism and logic, with intuition a powerful source of hypotheses, are the only path to reliable answers for questions of how.  Questions of why must be put to one's own emotional and appetitive apparatuses, as tbey are the only path to answering questions of why.  The right tool for the right task.

[Ihateusernames]

I am inclined to agree with you, Sir.

Welcome to my world, then.

Sam Harris, however, has good point, too here:http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

His argument is specious.  He assumes I should care about suffering, and then talks about how science illuminates the causes of suffering and how to remove those causes.  It is certainly true that science illuminates the causes of suffering and how to remove those causes.  But to say that I should care about suffering - yours, mine, or anyone's - and call that an objective truth, is specious.  I may well care about your suffering, but if I do, it's for reasons of emotion and/or appetite.  Even my concern for my own suffering is a matter of emotion and/or appetite.  All concern, without exception, is emotional and/or appetitive.  All concern is subjective.

To use different words - morality begins with motivation.  Nothing is good, to me, except that I am motivated toward doing it, experiencing it, having it, knowing it has occurred or is occurring, or knowing it has existed or exists.  Nothing is bad, to me, except that I am motivated toward not doing it, not experiencing it, not having it, knowing it hasn't occurred or isn't occurring, or knowing it hasn't existed or doesn't exist.  Motivation is subjective.

I am a scientarian.  This means I am motivated toward doing what scientists do when I consider truth or falsehood.  It also means I am motivated toward experiencing the learning that comes from reading about science, and also am motivated toward knowing that the activities of science continue to occur, the latter in turn motivating me to speak up as science's advocate when the occasion presents itself.

Once I deem something good, I then consider how to accomplish, experience, have, or be confident of the perpetuation of that which I deem good.  Likewise, once I deem something bad, I then consider how to avoid accomplishing, avoid experiencing, avoid having, or be confident of the cessation of that which I deem bad.  Questions of how are questions best put to science, or at least science's methods.  Empiricism and logic, with intuition a powerful source of hypotheses, are the only path to reliable answers for questions of how.  Questions of why must be put to one's own emotional and appetitive apparatuses, as tbey are the only path to answering questions of why.  The right tool for the right task.

So basically if I'm reading you right you are saying that a child molester should molest kids to their hearts content because the only 'right' thing for them to do is fulfill their "appetite"

This model of morality seems so counter intuitive to anything most of us would purport.  I'm not saying it's wrong (in this post). Just wanted to know your response to the question.

[Asmodean]

So basically if I'm reading you right you are saying that a child molester should molest kids to their hearts content because the only 'right' thing for them to do is fulfill their "appetite"

If "right thing" was the only factor in this equasion, then yes for all I care. However, it is not, so I think a better way of looking at it is this: "Do what thou willst - then pay the price"  

[dloubet]

His argument is specious. He assumes I should care about suffering, and then talks about how science illuminates the causes of suffering and how to remove those causes.

Well, yes, he does make the outrageous assumption that he's talking to a human being about morality.

[Ihateusernames]

So basically if I'm reading you right you are saying that a child molester should molest kids to their hearts content because the only 'right' thing for them to do is fulfill their "appetite"

If "right thing" was the only factor in this equasion, then yes for all I care. However, it is not, so I think a better way of looking at it is this: "Do what thou willst - then pay the price"  

You do realize that a vast majority of pedophiles don't ever pay any 'price', correct?  But its just nice to know that you will admit that you think they are doing something 'good' by abusing children.

[Inevitable Droid]

So basically if I'm reading you right you are saying that a child molester should molest kids to their hearts content because the only 'right' thing for them to do is fulfill their "appetite"

No.  My point has nothing to do with whether child molesting is wrong, but rather, with why it's wrong.  It's wrong because we say so.  If we stopped saying so, and nobody else was saying so, then there would be no basis by which it could be wrong.

If I saw someone molesting a child, I would intervene to protect the child, because my morality would require it - but I wouldn't claim that my morality was objectively true.  I would claim my morality as mine, and do what I considered right, because I considered it right.  I would also consider the child molester to be wrong, but not for any objective reason, but simply because I judged him wrong by my own morality, which belongs to me, and which I made for myself.  

But go ahead, if you wish - offer an objective reason why molesting a child is wrong.  It will have to be a reason that (1) isn't grounded in opinion; (2) isn't true because we say so; and (3) isn't extrapolated from the supernatural or some other abstraction unavailable to the five senses or to mechanical instruments of detection.

I think a better way of looking at it is this: "Do what thou willst - then pay the price"  

Excellent point.  We don't rely on morality to stop or punish child molesters.  We have something better.  We have law and the gun-toting cops who champion it.

Well, yes, he [Sam Harris] does make the outrageous assumption that he's talking to a human being about morality.

I presume you're offering consensus as our objective measuring rod.  If I'm right, then I will ask, by what right do you claim consensus as objective?  I'll note that consensus is notoriously unreliable as to matters of fact and notoriously fickle as to matters of opinion.

[dloubet]

by what right do you claim consensus as objective?

Consensus gets to define what the word means.

I'm trying to sway the consensus to my definition of morality being those behaviors that allow people to live together in peace and harmony.

Good luck swaying the consensus to your definition.

[Inevitable Droid]

Consensus gets to define what the word means.

I agree.  (For those who just now came into the discussion, the word in question is morality.)

I'm trying to sway the consensus to my definition of morality being those behaviors that allow people to live together in peace and harmony.

You would thus be attempting to sway public opinion your way.  If you start a thread that explicitly attempts precisely that, I would enjoy observing and participating.  I promise not to bother discussing subjectivism on a thread with that exact agenda, as there won't be any point in doing so, since you won't be attempting to prove objectively what morality is, but rather will be attempting to convince others to embrace your vision of what morality should be - an attempt at propaganda, and, like all propaganda, subjectivist to the core.

Good luck swaying the consensus to your definition.

I don't know if I explicitly defined the term - an oversight I should rectify.  I will define morality as, "the criteria by which the individual or collective judges a behavior as proper or improper for sapients to engage in."  My definition is agnostic toward what those criteria are and unopinionated as to what they should be.  As such, I doubt anyone will attempt to dispute it.  A definition that instead was gnostic toward what those criteria are would be hotly debated from all sorts of angles, a proliferation of angles that would multiply like rabbits.  The thread I propose above, by contrast, would be presenting a definition that was, instead, opinionated as to what the criteria should be, without attempting to be gnostic as to what they are - and,if open about its agenda, might fulfill it.

[Asmodean]

But its just nice to know that you will admit that you think they are doing something 'good' by abusing children.

Wrong. I clearly stated that, at the end of the day, I don't care. I find pedophilia distasteful, but that does not make it an objective wrongdoing, and I can't be bothered to care unless it hits close to home. THAT I always have, and will be, honest about.

[dloubet]

Consensus gets to define what the word means.

I agree. (For those who just now came into the discussion, the word in question is morality.)

And that is my objective criteria.

an attempt at propaganda, and, like all propaganda, subjectivist to the core.

The propaganda may be subjective, but any result will be objective.

I will define morality as, "the criteria by which the individual or collective judges a behavior as proper or improper for sapients to engage in."

What do proper and improper mean in this context?

[Inevitable Droid]

Consensus gets to define what the word means.

I agree. (For those who just now came into the discussion, the word in question is morality.)

And that is my objective criteria.

If you can get people to agree to define the word the way you want, then the word will mean what you want it to mean.  No argument there.  That's a big if, however.

an attempt at propaganda, and, like all propaganda, subjectivist to the core.

The propaganda may be subjective, but any result will be objective.

First it has to succeed.  I look forward to watching you give it a try.

I will define morality as, "the criteria by which the individual or collective judges a behavior as proper or improper for sapients to engage in."

What do proper and improper mean in this context?

Whatever the reader wants them to mean.

[dloubet]

That's interesting.

Since proper and improper can mean what ever the reader wants, that means there's no limit on what can be proper or improper. This is also true of the absence of morality. Thus there is no difference between morality, and no morality.

If the presence of something can't be discerned from the absence of that same thing, it's a strong indicator that the something doesn't exist.

Or the definition is wrong.