News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Axioms of Objective Morality

Started by Inevitable Droid, November 23, 2010, 10:11:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Wilson

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"You're equating morality with empathy, then.

No, I'm more or less equating what I called a "natural morality" with empathy.  Sympathetic empathy is the basis for what I'd like morality to be.  We always sympathize in the movies with someone who's broken the rules of society in order to be of service to someone.

Of course "morality" is just a word.  But it seems to me the the common understanding of moral behavior could be defined as something like behaving in a way that makes us feel like we did the right thing.  Immoral behavior is behaving in a way that makes up feel guilty.

In my opinion, there are two kinds of morality - the instinctive kind I mentioned above, and rules.  Rules can be established by a church, a government, a peer group, or even an individual himself.  Obviously the rules of moral behavior are different from culture to culture.  Someone lacking in empathy will be restricted to following rules of behavior.  Those capable of empathy will generally follow the rules of society but sometimes will act out of sympathy toward our fellow men if the rules of society seem unjust or vague.

So to me, someone who acts kindly toward his neighbors is a moral person.  But I recognize that this isn't absolute; it's just what feels right to me, no matter where those feelings came from.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Do you agree that a fact about subjectivity is itself an objective fact?
What if I do?

If you do, then I contend that you logically must agree that an objective morality can be built around facts concerning subjectivity.  If you don't, however, then I contend that you have logically rendered objective morality impossible.  The basis of my contentions is a set of three underlying contentions:

1. The existence of moral facts is necessary for objective morality to exist.
2. All moral facts are facts about subjectivity.
3. All facts are objective truths.

To attack my position is to attack one, two, or all three of the above.

Incidentally, I'm not playing a game here.  When I debate, my goal is always truth, either to discover it or to defend it.  Winning an argument for the sake of winning an argument has no appeal for me.  I readily concede error when convinced I have erred.  I even volunteer the concession when I could gracefully avoid doing so.  But I don't concede until I'm convinced.  If I have a God, its name is truth.

QuoteIt seems to me that all you are doing here is attempting to usurp the definition of "objective morality", and replace it with your own definition which is really just the definition of subjective morality with some logical proofs and scientific reasoning slathered on top to make it sound more "objective".

I contend that I don't have to accept a consensus definition if that consensus definition is logically invalid.  I further contend that any definition of objective morality that isn't precisely or at least equivalently, "morality based on facts," is logically invalid, and therefore permissible for me to reject.  All of my arguments in that direction hinge on the three underlying contentions listed previously, above.

Thus if I say that the Taliban will disapprove of me pulling the burka off that woman, and if I have stated a fact, then I have stated an objective truth.  Have I stated a fact?  To test this, first test whether the statement is falsifiable.  It is.  Next, either accept the statement as self-evident, or test whether it's false.  I claim the statement as self-evident, but I don't have to.  We could test whether the statement is false.  I merely claim that the probability of the statement being false is zero.  I say this because I know the Taliban will disapprove.  Knowledge consists of facts.  Facts comprise knowledge.

QuoteI can see the appeal of such an approach, because it would allow the atheist to claim acceptance of a system of "objective morality"

That's one appeal.  But its greatest appeal is that it's logically valid, assuming it is.  Logical validity trumps everything.  Logical validity must be submitted to, or else all reason, all sapience, all common sense, all competence, and all sanity must be abandoned.  If we reject logical validity, we might as well knock a hole in our skulls, scoop out our brains, and use them as chum.

Quote- but having redefined the term you are effectively just pulling a fast one over on those who are still using the original definition.

If your definition of objective morality isn't precisely or at least equivalently, "morality based on facts," then I reject your definition until such time as you convince me your definition is logically valid.  What is your definition of objective morality?

QuoteObjective morality would hold that pulling off that woman's burka was "right" or "wrong", "proper" or "improper", regardless of whether any Taliban were present, whether the woman was Muslim, etc -- and the assignment of morality to that action would be indisputable fact of a higher order immune to anthropological contexts.

I think you're confusing the adjective objective with the adjective absolute.  Do you see those words as perfect synonyms?  I would agree that the absolute implies the objective, but I disagree that the objective implies the absolute.  I contend that the objective can be relative, and in fact most often is.  When the objective is absolute, it is universal as well, thus utterly general.  "Mass pulls mass" is an objective, absolute fact.  It is also universal, thus utterly general.  All specificity is relative.  To disprove that, you will have to say something specific that isn't relative.    

If the goal is absolute morality then I will provide us with absolute morality's only available dictum: "Have a conscience."  No other absolute moral dictum is available, for no other would be universal and therefore utterly general, and all specificity is relative.

QuoteYou've used reason to identify what the likely outcome of your action is--what the surrounding subjects are likely to think about it--but you've failed to identify the morality of your action itself.  Reactions do not morality make.

They do if approval and disapproval are fundamental to morality.  Are they?  I say they are.

QuoteYou've in fact rendered it an even colder calculation than I imagined you might because you based your moral fact entirely on what the men think....not even the woman...not even yourself...  The latter two are the most important, I would argue.

The relativity of morality allows the Taliban, me, and the woman to all disagree and still each be moral within each's anthropological context, while each being immoral within the other's anthropolical context.  That's what bothers you, I think.  You want us all to agree, or else, if we all disagree, then you want one of us to be absolutely right and the others to be absolutely wrong.  I contend that as far as morality is concerned, the only way to be absolutely wrong is to be amoral; I.e., to not have a conscience at all.  Beyond that, rightness and wrongness are contextual, hence relative.

QuoteWhen I ponder the possibility of objective morality of late, I tend to think more along the lines of this: how does a being that has achieved consciousness differ from one that has not?  Once a being gains a conscious sense of "self", which in turn requires a conscious sense of "other", what implications does that have for the being?  If I exist, and others like me exist, am I not bound to conclude something akin to the golden rule (if I ponder on it long enough)?

I say no.  How will you convince me that I'm wrong?  On what basis will you argue?  I contend that I can be sapient and a complete sociopath simultaneously.  I can be sapient and not care at all about anyone's well-being but my own.  Nothing biological, chemical, or physical stops me, and nothing logical does either.  To prove me wrong, you would have to convince me that a complete sociopath isn't sapient.  But of course you aren't arguing what I can do, but what I should.  You are claiming that what I should do is a subset of what I can, such that, the set of what I can do contains not only what I should, but also what I shouldn't.  So your argument isn't based on capability.  What is it based on?

Most people who argue along these lines try to demonstrate that it is somehow illogical for me to prefer myself to others.  They typically contend, eventually, if pressed hard enough to explain themselves, that preferring myself to others is illogical because all preference is illogical, hence to be logical is to not prefer.  This is nonsense, of course.  It is true, certainly, that to be strictly logical and nothing else is to not prefer.  To be strictly logical and nothing else is to not be hungry either, or cold, or male, or human, or alive, or an animal, or biological, or chemical, or physical.  Can I be logical and hungry simultaneously?  Of course.  Can I be logical and cold simultaneously?  Of course.  Can I be logical and have preferences simultaneously?  Of course.

If I can be logical and have preferences simultaneously, then I can be logical and simultaneously prefer myself to others, even totally.  I can be logical and simultaneously a complete sociopath.

But I'll stop here and let you argue your own case.  I contend that you will never successfully defend the golden rule on purely logical grounds.
 
QuoteIn your Taliban test, one should think to oneself, were I a Muslim woman (surrounded by Taliban or not), would I want a westerner to walk up and yank off my burka?

Why should I think that?  I don't think that.  I empathize with the woman, but I don't think I should empathize with her.  For me, empathy is neither good nor bad.  It just is.  I neither approve nor disapprove of empathy.  I experience it the same way I experience hunger, or cold.  It happens, and I respond to it.  I could respond by acting in accord with it, or I could respond by acting in discord with it.  I neither approve nor disapprove of acting in accord with empathy, nor do I approve or disapprove of acting in discord with empathy.  Empathy isn't a moral fact for me.  I don't subscribe to any anthropological context that makes empathy a moral fact.

QuoteAnd if the answer is most likely "no" then why on earth would you do it?

Perhaps because I am a radical feminist who is so deeply offended by the wearing of the burka that I consider it my moral duty to make it stop.  Or because I have a conscience that is deeply offended by cowardice, and I am convinced that the woman in the burka actually hates wearing it and would yank it off on her own if only she had the courage, but she is a coward, and so I consider it my moral duty to yank the thing off her, so as to prevent cowardice, that horrible sin, from winning the day.  Or because I have a conscience that is deeply offended by anyone allowing suffering to occur if it can be prevented, and I am convinced the woman in the burka is suffering, perhaps from heat, but she keeps the thing on out of fear, and so I consider it my moral duty to yank the thing off her, because suffering must be prevented at all costs, if not by the sufferer, then by any onlooker with the power of prevention.

QuoteI might argue that if you did go through with it, you have an underdeveloped sense of "self" and "other" and you need some more schoolin' on the subject.

Apparently you would argue that imposing my will on someone else is immoral.  On what basis?
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Wilson"Sympathetic empathy is the basis for what I'd like morality to be.  We always sympathize in the movies with someone who's broken the rules of society in order to be of service to someone.

Fair enough.  You're saying what you'd like morality to be, as opposed to saying what it in fact is, or must be, or should be.  You're stating a preference.  Fair enough.

QuoteBut it seems to me the the common understanding of moral behavior could be defined as something like behaving in a way that makes us feel like we did the right thing.  Immoral behavior is behaving in a way that makes up feel guilty.

Agreed.  Strongly.  On this thread I've been saying things like, "approving or disapproving are fundamental to what morality is."  I think that's equivalent to your own contention, to the extent that approval or disapproval are applied to oneself.  What I have done, of course, is go a step further, and try to describe the origins of approval and disapproval as they occur in most people most of the time.

QuoteIn my opinion, there are two kinds of morality - the instinctive kind I mentioned above, and rules.  Rules can be established by a church, a government, a peer group, or even an individual himself.  Obviously the rules of moral behavior are different from culture to culture.

Anthropological context, in other words - except for this "instinctive kind" of morality you mention.  I think you must again be referring to empathy.  But I think you've already said, or implied, that empathy and morality aren't necessarily identical, but rather, that you would like them to be.  Empathy probably is instinctive.  But whether it's moral is an open question.  You would like it to be, but you aren't going so far as to say that it absolutely or necessarily is.

QuoteSomeone lacking in empathy will be restricted to following rules of behavior.

Or not following them.  Or acting in accord with approval or disapproval without having codified the reasons for such into principles or rules.

QuoteThose capable of empathy will generally follow the rules of society but sometimes will act out of sympathy toward our fellow men if the rules of society seem unjust or vague.

The phrase capable of empathy is interesting.  I agree that some people are capable of empathy and some people at least seem to be incapable of it.  What would it say about our morality, if we made a moral requirement out of something some people are incapable of?

I've been assuming that the set of what we can do has within it, completely contained, the set of what we should do.  It never occurred to me that perhaps we should do what we can't.  I balk at that notion.  But I do so out of reflex.  I don't have a strictly logical reason.  Perhaps it isn't merely deeds that can be immoral, but being itself.  Perhaps it is immoral to be such a creature as is incapable of empathy.  Perhaps if I were such a creature, the only moral thing for me to do would be to kill myself immediately, as my continued live existence is morally offensive.  I don't really think this, but I don't have a strictly logical reason why morality should exclude being from its domain of influence.

On the other hand, perhaps empathy is only required if one is capable of it.  Perhaps incapability is a valid excuse, not merely with regard to empathy, but with regard to any requirement.  I always thought that.  But I never even tried to justify it.  Any justification would have to assume that being is outside the domain of morality's influence, that my being can't be immoral, but only my deeds.

QuoteSo to me, someone who acts kindly toward his neighbors is a moral person.  But I recognize that this isn't absolute; it's just what feels right to me, no matter where those feelings came from.

Fair enough.  I agree that what feels right to you isn't absolute, just as what feels right to me isn't absolute either.  But whether, being relative, its basis could nevertheless be objective, is an open question.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Asmodean

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"All three of the above could occur in the same situation.  A woman in a burka walks into a supermarket.  Reactions are mixed.  Radical Muslims approve, secular French disapprove, feminists disapprove, Zionists disapprove, misogynists and misanthropes approve out of malice, sociologists reserve judgment.  Contradictory?  Not at all, because moral facts are anthropologically contextual.  Moral facts simply don't exist at all unless and until you step into a context, but once you step in, the facts are in your face, accosting you.  Similarly, if it were possible to step outside all space and time, presumably one would feel no temperature at all, neither hot nor cold.  So far as we know, temperature literally doesn't exist outside space and time.  Context is mandatory.
Thank you! A far superior example to mine, illustrating pretty much the same point as I was trying to make.  :)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

hackenslash

OK, let's begin at the beginning. Firstly, I note that you neatly evaded the first part of my post. Quite an achievement for such a long response to such a short post.

You are asking us to take as axiomatic certain things pertaining to moral facts, and arguing that they are uncontraversial. I do not accept your axioms because of the fatal logical flaw in them, namely the question being begged with regard to the existence of 'moral facts'. Your entire line of reasoning is predicated upon the existence of them, yet you gloss over the objection as if it hasn't been raised.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If by give a toss we mean care, and if by universe we mean the universe taken as a whole, then one could argue that the universe taken as a whole doesn't care about anything, yet presumably we claim that there are at least some objective facts.  The universe taken as a whole doesn't care about mass, distance, duration, chemical composition.  Why single out morality and require that, in the case of morality, the universe taken as a whole has to care?  

Beautiful bait and switch.

Morality is about caring, which is why morality is singled out. For anything to be objective, it has to be true from any and every perspective, because that's what the word means. For morality to be objective, and for moral facts to exist, they have to be true from a universal standpoint, which means that the universe has to care about them. The same is not true of other objective statements, only about morality, whose basis is caring. Moreover, even granting that the opinions of one species could constitute objectivity, which is a preposterous proposition, the simple fact that there are no universally agreed upon principles of morality even among humans, or even in what actually constitutes morality, your argument is dead in the water.

QuoteIf by give a toss we mean merely respond, and if by universe we continue to mean the universe taken as a whole, then one could argue that the universe taken as a whole doesn't respond to anything, since all responses are local to some finite portion of space.  If I kick a pebble, the universe as a whole doesn't respond.  The pebble responds, and anything the pebble hits along its trajectory before coming to rest will respond to the pebble, but even if we insist on wildly generalizing the butterfly effect, nothing on the moon will respond in any way to my kick, nor anything on the sun, nor certainly anything in orbit around Alpha Centauri.

Even localised effects are true from a universal perspective, and are therefore objective. What you have not managed to demonstrate is that there is a single moral principle that is true from the standpoint of any observer in the universe (which is what I was referring to with the vernacular usage of 'give a toss', incidentally).

QuoteIf we allow universe to mean the universe by virtue of any of its parts, then we permit ourselves to say that the universe cares about things, since living creatures care about things and are parts of the universe, and the universe responds to things, since specific entitites, living or not, respond to things and are parts of the universe.  So now, presumably, we permit ourselves to talk about objective facts.  Humans are specific entities, and living creatures.  Humans respond to and care about a great diversity of things, including moral facts.  When humans respond, the universe, as defined in this paragraph, responds.  When humans care, the universe, as defined in this paragraph, cares.  And so, by the parameters of this paragraph, the universe responds to, and cares about, moral facts.  If we dispute the parameters of this paragraph, then we are left having to explain to what extent objective facts of any kind exist.

Lovely fallacy of composition there. There are parts of the universe that x, therefore it is a property of the universe as a whole that x.

Very poor.

QuoteTemperature?

Is not contextual, but objective. For a given temperature x, even in a confined region, it is objectively and universally true that x for that confined region.

QuoteWeather?

See above.

QuoteAverage height?

Entirely subjective, and not objective. Tell me, what constitutes 'average', and who decides it?

Quote(Ethnically contextual.)  Context matters for most objective facts as typically stated.  "A dog just bit me!"  The context is time of day, due to the word, just.

No, the time provides context, it doesn't make the statement contextual. Given that the statement is an accurate description of events, it is objectively true that a dog just bit you. The provided context does not make the statement contextual.

QuoteRemove the word just, and the listener, if not a direct observer, will ask, "When?  Where?"  (The question of location would refer to location on the speaker's body.)  When and where are relevant context for the fact of a dog bite.

No, they provide context for the audience to the statement, but they have no effect on the objectivity of the statement itself, which is not contextual.

QuoteMost objective facts need to be clarified as to when and where, and often who, the latter exemplified by average height, or most common eye color and shade, or most common hair color and shade, all being contextual by ethnicity.  Context doesn't negate the objectivity of a fact.

All of those things are subjective, as they describe imposed means, rather than constituting objective statements. Any statement of such an average is, by the inclusion of the context under which it's being stated, necessarily subjective. Average height for what? A human? A dog? A sequoia?

Context provides clarity, not objectivity.

Now, I'd be very much interested in your response to my initial objection, namely the glaring bit of question-begging in the OP.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Inevitable Droid

OM Axiom 8: Opting into or out of an anthropological context is first an act of discovery as to one's true nature, followed up by an act of will.

If moral relativism isn't moral subjectivism, then either it is impossible to move into and out of anthropological contexts, but rather they are givens and must be assumed as incontrovertible, or else the movement into and out of them must be driven first by fact.  I say this because otherwise the movement into and out of anthropological contexts would be driven by subjectivism, and that would render the whole system subjectivist.

It is manifestly false that moving into and out of anthropological contexts is impossible.  Anthropological contexts aren't givens.  They can't be assumed as incontrovertible.  It is commonplace that people abandon religions, patriotisms, filial loyalties, friendships, marriages, philosophical communities, political communities, clubs, professions, and business relationships.

I must accordingly either abandon any claim for objective morality, then, or else I must argue that the movement into and out of anthropological contexts is driven first by fact.  The only facts that could possibly drive moral allegiance to a context would be facts about oneself, one's true nature.  Faked allegiance could be driven by all sorts of other facts, but I'm not talking here about faked allegiance.  I'm talking about sincere, serious, real, true, factual moral allegiance.  Nobody offers that to anything except after realizing, "Yes, I am such as would have to be one of these, in fact I am already one of these in all but name and the performance of some requisite rituals."

No honest man gets baptized unless he knows in his heart he is already Christian.  No honest immigrant seeks citizenship unless he knows in his heart he is already a citizen.  No honest fiance seeks to wed unless he knows in his heart he is already husband to his betrothed.  No honest voter joins the Republican party unless he knows in his heart he is already a Republican.  No honest student goes to medical school unless he knows in his heart he is already a doctor, merely awaiting training the way a flower awaits water.

What then of those who abandon contexts?  Either they originally opted in for self-deceitful or disingenuous reasons, or were pressured into opting in, or have changed so fundamentally that what was once true to their natures no longer is.
 
The entire system presented in this thread hinges full square on what I have writen in this post.  Those who wish to dismantle the system need only dismantle what I have written in this post.  Are relativism and subjectivism identical?  If this post is logically or empirically invalid, then relativism and subjectivism are identical.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

hackenslash

Nope. To dismantle the system, I only need to demonstrate that it is rooted in fallacious reasoning. The fallacy in this instance has been cited and no attempt to deal with it has been forthcoming.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Inevitable Droid

#22
Quote from: "hackenslash"OK, let's begin at the beginning. Firstly, I note that you neatly evaded the first part of my post. Quite an achievement for such a long response to such a short post.

Hmm.  OK.  I thought the second part of that post was intended as the supporting argument for the first part, such that, by addressing the second part, I was addressing the first.  Here's the first part, then:

Quote from: "hackenslash"There's a beautiful bit of question-begging going on in the above, namely the existence of moral 'facts'.

Within anthropological contexts there are moral facts.  In the context of Catholicism, extra-marital sex is disapproved of, abortion is disapproved of, theft and lying and suicide are disapproved of.  These are moral facts.  It is factual that Catholicism sets up these disapprovals.  The only open question is whether contextuality renders the facts something other than objective.  
 
QuoteYou are asking us to take as axiomatic certain things pertaining to moral facts, and arguing that they are uncontraversial. I do not accept your axioms because of the fatal logical flaw in them, namely the question being begged with regard to the existence of 'moral facts'. Your entire line of reasoning is predicated upon the existence of them, yet you gloss over the objection as if it hasn't been raised.

OK.  Sorry about that.  It happens (with me at least) when something seems obvious.  But I failed to realize from your post that you were disputing precisely that.  Mea culpa.

Quote
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If by give a toss we mean care, and if by universe we mean the universe taken as a whole, then one could argue that the universe taken as a whole doesn't care about anything, yet presumably we claim that there are at least some objective facts.  The universe taken as a whole doesn't care about mass, distance, duration, chemical composition.  Why single out morality and require that, in the case of morality, the universe taken as a whole has to care?  

Beautiful bait and switch.

Morality is about caring, which is why morality is singled out.

Hmm.  Good point.  Thank you for raising it.

QuoteFor anything to be objective, it has to be true from any and every perspective, because that's what the word means.

You're equating objective with absolute; I.e., you're saying that for something to be objective, it can't be relative.  On what do you base that?  To make sure I wasn't off the deep end, I checked my Random House Webster's College Dictionary.  None of the definitions of the adjective objective say anything about not being relative, or about being absolute.  They talk about not being subjective.  I would argue that the antonym of objective is subjective, not relative.  I would also argue that subjective and relative aren't synonyms.  While it's true that everything subjective is relative, it's false that everything relative is subjective.

QuoteFor morality to be objective, and for moral facts to exist, they have to be true from a universal standpoint, which means that the universe has to care about them.

So now objective means universal also.  I don't find in my dictionary any definitions of the adjective objective that talk about being universal, or not being local.  I would argue, again, that the antonym of objective is subjective, not local.  I would also argue that subjective and local aren't synonyms.  While it's true that everything subjective is local, it's false that everything local is subjective.

I accept, incidentally, that absolute and universal might as well be synonyms, even if technically perhaps they aren't, since everything absolute is universal, and everything universal is absolute.  I merely deny that objective can be added to the two to make a triptych.  I base this on the fact that something can be relative and local without being subjective, and subjective is the antonym of objective.

QuoteThe same is not true of other objective statements, only about morality, whose basis is caring.

This point you're making about caring is a good one.

QuoteMoreover, even granting that the opinions of one species could constitute objectivity, which is a preposterous proposition, the simple fact that there are no universally agreed upon principles of morality even among humans, or even in what actually constitutes morality, your argument is dead in the water.

Within a particular context there is usually a great deal of agreement upon principles of morality.  Of course our disagreement resides in whether contextuality destroys objectivity.

QuoteEven localised effects are true from a universal perspective, and are therefore objective.

In order to examine the localized effect, one must enter the local domain, or examine something that has come from a local domain.  I don't know a rock has fallen on Pluto except by examining images constructed from photons that have exited Pluto.  But you and I have disagreed before on what I'm saying here.  I don't grant the existence of a fact unless someone knows it.  Until someone knows a fact, there is no fact.  In a universe with no life, and thus no knowledge, there would be no facts.  Given the foregoing, entering an anthropological context is the same as entering Pluto, and examining something that has come from an anthropological context is the same as examing the photons that have come from Pluto.

QuoteWhat you have not managed to demonstrate is that there is a single moral principle that is true from the standpoint of any observer in the universe (which is what I was referring to with the vernacular usage of 'give a toss', incidentally).

Nor will I ever demonstrate that, or even try, except with respect to the obvious principle, "Have morals."  I think any creature anywhere who posits any kind of morality will have to agree with the principle, "Have morals."  Failure to comply would of course be amorality, which I offer as the one abolute, universal sin.

Quote
QuoteIf we allow universe to mean the universe by virtue of any of its parts, then we permit ourselves to say that the universe cares about things, since living creatures care about things and are parts of the universe, and the universe responds to things, since specific entitites, living or not, respond to things and are parts of the universe.  So now, presumably, we permit ourselves to talk about objective facts.  Humans are specific entities, and living creatures.  Humans respond to and care about a great diversity of things, including moral facts.  When humans respond, the universe, as defined in this paragraph, responds.  When humans care, the universe, as defined in this paragraph, cares.  And so, by the parameters of this paragraph, the universe responds to, and cares about, moral facts.  If we dispute the parameters of this paragraph, then we are left having to explain to what extent objective facts of any kind exist.

Lovely fallacy of composition there. There are parts of the universe that x, therefore it is a property of the universe as a whole that x.

Very poor.

It would be very poor if I had committed it.  I didn't.  I said if we allow universe to mean the universe by virtue of any of its parts.  First of all, then, I was positing a conditional; I.e., a choice.  Secondly, the choice I was offering was whether to accept a definition for the word universe that specifically would have excluded any notion of universe as a whole, since the definition suggested was, the universe by virtue of any of its parts.  My entire point was to suggest we could voluntarily exclude this notion of universe as a whole.  Voluntarily exclude it.

I'm going to skip some of what follows, as it hinges on concepts we debate fully above.  Resuming here, then:

Quote
QuoteAverage height?

Entirely subjective, and not objective. Tell me, what constitutes 'average', and who decides it?

Average height for group X would be the total of the heights of the members of group X divided by the number of members of group X.  The only open question is who are the members of group X.
 
Quote
Quote(Ethnically contextual.)  Context matters for most objective facts as typically stated.  "A dog just bit me!"  The context is time of day, due to the word, just.

No, the time provides context, it doesn't make the statement contextual. Given that the statement is an accurate description of events, it is objectively true that a dog just bit you. The provided context does not make the statement contextual.

Without the context we don't know what the statement means.  A contextual statement is one which cannot be understood without reference to the context.  What else would a contextual statement be?

QuoteContext provides clarity, not objectivity.

I agree.  I however would also say, "Context provides clarity, not subjectivity."
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Persimmon Hamster

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If you do, then I contend that you logically must agree that an objective morality can be built around facts concerning subjectivity.  If you don't, however, then I contend that you have logically rendered objective morality impossible.  The basis of my contentions is a set of three underlying contentions:

1. The existence of moral facts is necessary for objective morality to exist.
2. All moral facts are facts about subjectivity.
3. All facts are objective truths.

To attack my position is to attack one, two, or all three of the above.
Well, let me ask you this.  Surely you must have some idea of where this will all take you?  As you currently see it going forward, of what utility will be the system of "objective subjective morality" for which these axioms will provide the framework?

I doubt many would argue with the "objectivity" of the "moral facts" presented in examples you have used so far, but those facts (as far as I can tell so far)  say nothing about how we should hold one another accountable for our actions--the entire point of discussing morality, it would seem to me.  In a vacuum involving myself and no other conscious entities, yes, I may do whatever I want, and the term "morality" is meaningless.  However we do not live in that vacuum; even if I were the last human alive there would also be the potential consciousness of the rest of the members of the animal kingdom for me to morally contemplate.

What it appears, to me, that you are doing is attempting to solve the problem of moral relativism (ethical subjectivism, subjective morality, etc) vs. moral realism (objective morality, etc) by establishing a middle ground wherein we can derive some utility from the identification of "objective moral facts".

Can you give an example, perhaps using the same Taliban test proposed already, of how your proposed system of objective morality will enable us to hold everyone in the situation accountable for their initial actions and resulting reactions?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Incidentally, I'm not playing a game here.  When I debate, my goal is always truth, either to discover it or to defend it.  Winning an argument for the sake of winning an argument has no appeal for me.  I readily concede error when convinced I have erred.  I even volunteer the concession when I could gracefully avoid doing so.  But I don't concede until I'm convinced.  If I have a God, its name is truth.
Fair enough.  By "arguing" with you, I'm not saying you are wrong, or I am right, in fact I don't yet know exactly what I believe/think on this topic (but I have contemplated it in short bursts).

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I contend that I don't have to accept a consensus definition if that consensus definition is logically invalid.  I further contend that any definition of objective morality that isn't precisely or at least equivalently, "morality based on facts," is logically invalid, and therefore permissible for me to reject.  All of my arguments in that direction hinge on the three underlying contentions listed previously, above.
I understand the first statement most definitely; as an ignostic I feel the same way about the definition of "God".  I similarly tend to agree that "moral realism" as traditionally imagined (or as I interpret it, perhaps I just interpret it wrong) is a nonsensical idea.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Thus if I say that the Taliban will disapprove of me pulling the burka off that woman, and if I have stated a fact, then I have stated an objective truth.  Have I stated a fact?  To test this, first test whether the statement is falsifiable.  It is.  Next, either accept the statement as self-evident, or test whether it's false.  I claim the statement as self-evident, but I don't have to.  We could test whether the statement is false.  I merely claim that the probability of the statement being false is zero.  I say this because I know the Taliban will disapprove.  Knowledge consists of facts.  Facts comprise knowledge.
Well, not so fast.  I am no longer certain you really have even approached stating a fact in your example.  Consider the following:
1) How do we measure "disapproval" in your system?
2) If I find some Taliban men who would not disapprove of such an act, then you will reject your statement as fact or at least recalculate the probability of it being false.  Trouble is, your statement leaves much ambiguity.  #1 above is part of that, but there is more.  Define "Taliban"?  Are we talking about recent converts, perhaps uneducated youths who have just wandered into the "wrong side of the tracks" for non-ideological reasons?  Are we talking about Taliban in an "unaltered" mental state, medically speaking -- no alcohol has recently been consumed, no mind-altering drugs?  Do they possess vision?  Are they conscious?  Are they looking in your direction?  Et al, ad infinitum.

To call your statement fact, I must assess the likelihood of its being falsified...  To assess that, I will require a full definition for every term in your statement...  Can you provide them?  Ah, the relativity of specificity.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"That's one appeal.  But its greatest appeal is that it's logically valid, assuming it is.  Logical validity trumps everything.  Logical validity must be submitted to, or else all reason, all sapience, all common sense, all competence, and all sanity must be abandoned.  If we reject logical validity, we might as well knock a hole in our skulls, scoop out our brains, and use them as chum.
Are you aware of any of the so-called limits of logic?  I’m no expert but in my current stage of philosophical and rational exploration I have already encountered some.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If your definition of objective morality isn't precisely or at least equivalently, "morality based on facts," then I reject your definition until such time as you convince me your definition is logically valid.  What is your definition of objective morality?

I think you're confusing the adjective objective with the adjective absolute.  Do you see those words as perfect synonyms?  I would agree that the absolute implies the objective, but I disagree that the objective implies the absolute.  I contend that the objective can be relative, and in fact most often is.  When the objective is absolute, it is universal as well, thus utterly general.  "Mass pulls mass" is an objective, absolute fact.  It is also universal, thus utterly general.  All specificity is relative.  To disprove that, you will have to say something specific that isn't relative.
Well, so far, I have not attempted to be very specific/discretionary in my usage of the term.  I think the most popular definition would be what might more technically be referred to as "moral realism".  The idea that there are moral facts, but not facts such as you propose (facts about subjective experience in a particular context).  Are there such facts?  If there are, what has any of that to do with morality?

I personally reject that "absolute moral facts" can exist in a form that most holding to moral realism might imagine.  IMO, no such fact exists as "any being which engages in sexual activities without specific intent to procreate is acting in moral error".  But I am not so quick to reject the idea that there may be some inevitable moral conclusion that one possessing enough intelligence/consciousness can arrive at -- if you will, a universal truth awaiting discovery by those who strive to understand it which has implications we would define as morality.  We could live our lives in complete oblivion about whether the sun revolves around the earth or the reverse, but the truth is out there, awaiting our conclusion should we choose to pursue it.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If the goal is absolute morality then I will provide us with absolute morality's only available dictum: "Have a conscience."  No other absolute moral dictum is available, for no other would be universal and therefore utterly general, and all specificity is relative.
I would perhaps phrase it as "have consciousness".  But do not stop there, examine what that means in its fullest sense, and perhaps you will find more utile basis for moral conduct than you expect.  This is essentially my proposition, I think.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"They do if approval and disapproval are fundamental to morality.  Are they?  I say they are.
Of whom?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The relativity of morality allows the Taliban, me, and the woman to all disagree and still each be moral within each's anthropological context, while each being immoral within the other's anthropolical context.  That's what bothers you, I think.  You want us all to agree, or else, if we all disagree, then you want one of us to be absolutely right and the others to be absolutely wrong.  I contend that as far as morality is concerned, the only way to be absolutely wrong is to be amoral; I.e., to not have a conscience at all.  Beyond that, rightness and wrongness are contextual, hence relative.
I suppose what bothers me is if "morality" depends upon context, I would probably no longer want to call it by that name.  I guess, to me, the concept of “morality" and the idea of absoluteness/universality go hand in hand; if morality is not in some way absolute then why bother to discuss it or even acknowledge relative concepts of “right" and “wrong"?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I say no.  How will you convince me that I'm wrong?  On what basis will you argue?
Alright, I’ll have a go at presenting my thoughts in a logical manner so that they can be more easily attacked.  Please keep in mind that this is my first attempt to do so in any formal sense, so I may make mistakes, I may need to refine the arguments/terms/concepts, simplifications may be possible.  Once I have presented the case, I will attempt to address all the good comments you raised.  Maybe in the process I will decide I am wrong.
For the purposes of my argument I will use the following terms:

Me, Self, I â€" These are more or less interchangeable.  Either term refers to the sense of consciousness which I possess, as a being with a sufficiently complex mind.  Awareness.  Having moved beyond a for-all-appearances deterministic force to become one for-all-appearances in possession of “will" (of the apparently “free" variety).  I would work harder to define “consciousness" (and possibly therein find my failure), but from our previous interactions I think we are on enough of the same page there to proceed without more detail.
You â€" This term refers to a sense of consciousness which I believe to be present in another entityâ€"one which I perceive as being distinct from myself.  But somewhat more than that, it refers to a consciousness like my own.
Other, Not-me â€" More general terms than “You", these terms refer to any entity (conscious or otherwise) which I perceive as existing distinct from myself.  A rock is Not-meâ€"is Otherâ€"as are You.

With these definitions, loose as they currently are, my argument perhaps comes down to a single premise:

1) I cannot exist without you.

Is this proposition falsifiable?  I think so.  Think isolated baby with no human or discernibly intelligent contact allowed to fully mature in said environment.  Perhaps an unethical experiment, perhaps why we have yet to try it.  We find feral children now and then but that's not the same, not at all.

Now, to expand upon that premise, to make it more understandable and derive meaning from it, I will present 4 ideas, or realizations that I contend a conscious being is capable of coming to recognize.  I list these ideas in a particular order; that is, the order in which it would seem easiest for us to come to realize them from the moment we begin to exist.

A) Selfness of Self.
I am me.  My existence is important to me.  I have needs and desires that are mine.
A sense of this would appear to have been hard-wired within me even before capacity for consciousness as we know it.

B) Selfness of Other.   
You are like me.  My existence is your existence and is important to you.  In this way, we are one.  My needs/desires are yours.
I develop a sense of this perhaps as early as in the womb, but at least as soon as my mother (and/or father) begins providing for me and asserting her/his otherness unto me.

C) Otherness of Other.
You are like me, but are not-me.  Because you are like me, your existence is important to you.  You have needs and desires, which may be like or unlike my own.
Others who are not-me and not-you also exist.  Others may have needs/desires, or may not, which may be like or unlike my own.
I come to know this as I enhance my sense of self to the exclusion of others, as I gain and assert independence, and as I see you ([m]other) assert yours.

D) Otherness of Self.
I am like you.  Your existence is my existence and is important to me.  In this way, we are one.  Your needs/desires are mine.
This is perhaps the last to be realized.  In some sense I can know this by becoming a parent.  But to fully realize it is to apply it not only within my immediate kin but on a global scale.  I cannot exist without you, you cannot exist without they, and so forth.  All are connected.  All are one.  We are one.

---------------------
Once a person has fully realized the above, the inevitable conclusions include:

What benefits me, benefits you.  What harms me, harms you.  What benefits you, benefits me.  What harms you, harms me.  We are one.  There is no true distinction between you and I beyond the illusion my immediate perception suggests (I very urgently, very tangibly feel my physical/emotional well-being but not yours).

Therefore my moral responsibility, when it comes to others (and others are required for morality to be an intelligible concept), would seem to be to realize all of the above and choose actions that affect others as though they will also affect myselfâ€"because they do/will.  Acting in a way that harms “we" is illogical and possibly suggestive of a defect in or underdevelopment of full consciousness.

Is all of the above true?  Can I realize it?  Should I realize it?  Keep reading.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I contend that I can be sapient and a complete sociopath simultaneously.
^Correct.  Or is it?  I contend fully developed consciousness includes awareness of (at least) the above 4 ideas.  I suggest something prevents the sociopath from developing such consciousness.  Is it medical?  Is it developmental?  Little of both?  Depends on the case?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I can be sapient and not care at all about anyone's well-being but my own.
^Correct.  But see above.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Nothing biological, chemical, or physical stops me, and nothing logical does either.
^I disagree.  I contend, if you have had sufficient time and external influence (from others) (within observed norms) to fully develop consciousness to the point that the above 4 ideas are self-evident, and yet you still have not concluded them, something biological, chemical, physical, or logical has worked against you.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"To prove me wrong, you would have to convince me that a complete sociopath isn't sapient.
If I convince you that my single, simple premise is true, and that full consciousness includes awareness of those 4 ideas, does it help the case any?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"But of course you aren't arguing what I can do, but what I should.
Am I?  Should man discover that earth revolves around the sun?  I see no reason to think he should.  But I think it is within his capability.  Likewise I think full realization of the above is within the capability of any conscious being, and is just as inevitable a conclusion to the man who sets out to ponder/explore/test his consciousness (mental universe) as is astronomy/cosmology to he who sets out to do ponder/explore/test his physical universe.  Once he realizes these things, I suggest he has now discovered “absolute morality" and to contradict it is to contradict his own mental senses and surrender to madness.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"You are claiming that what I should do is a subset of what I can, such that, the set of what I can do contains not only what I should, but also what I shouldn't.  So your argument isn't based on capability.  What is it based on?
I am claiming that you can do whatever you set out to do, but that if you have realized the above, many things will no longer seem sensible to you; you will reject them as easily and as matter-of-factly as you reject that earth is the center of the u-niverse.  You will no longer regard yourself as the center of the we-niverse.  Your eyes will have been opened to a higher truth that cannot easily be ignored, or should not be (yet still can be, to your own detriment).

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Most people who argue along these lines try to demonstrate that it is somehow illogical for me to prefer myself to others.
This is sort of what I am arguing, I suppose?  Or is it?  I would say that once you have reasoned out the above, and discovered my “absolute morality", then to act in opposition to it would not only be illogical to you, it would well be abhorrent to you.  If you have not reached that point yet, perhaps you have an underdeveloped consciousness.  Perhaps I do as well, since I still often do not practice quite what I preach in this regard.  Perhaps I have yet to prove to myself the basic premise…but I strongly suspect it.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"They typically contend, eventually, if pressed hard enough to explain themselves, that preferring myself to others is illogical because all preference is illogical, hence to be logical is to not prefer.  This is nonsense, of course.  It is true, certainly, that to be strictly logical and nothing else is to not prefer.  To be strictly logical and nothing else is to not be hungry either, or cold, or male, or human, or alive, or an animal, or biological, or chemical, or physical.  Can I be logical and hungry simultaneously?  Of course.  Can I be logical and cold simultaneously?  Of course.  Can I be logical and have preferences simultaneously?  Of course.
^Now, I am pretty sure I am not saying any of that.  Am I?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If I can be logical and have preferences simultaneously, then I can be logical and simultaneously prefer myself to others, even totally.  I can be logical and simultaneously a complete sociopath.
Certainly.  If this were the 12th century, and the ability to study the cosmos was much further out of your reach, you could lack an understanding that the earth revolves around the sun, and logically you could assert it is the other way aroundâ€"and label anyone who would argue a heretic.  You are logical, yet your understanding of a basic truth is incomplete, and so you engage in behavior that is utter lunacy to anyone who possesses that understanding which you lack.  Like a sociopath, or a child.  And yet the earth revolves around the sun.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"But I'll stop here and let you argue your own case.  I contend that you will never successfully defend the golden rule on purely logical grounds.
Well, I certainly have not made a very technical effort to express the argument in purely logical terms.  I am not very well learned in formal logicâ€"I only have one or two discrete math courses under my belt and those were over 7 years ago…as you know I am an engineer and we tend to be more concerned with applications of logic than theory/science of logic.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
QuoteIn your Taliban test, one should think to oneself, were I a Muslim woman (surrounded by Taliban or not), would I want a westerner to walk up and yank off my burka?
Why should I think that?  I don't think that.  I empathize with the woman, but I don't think I should empathize with her.  For me, empathy is neither good nor bad.  It just is.  I neither approve nor disapprove of empathy.  I experience it the same way I experience hunger, or cold.  It happens, and I respond to it.
Hunger…cold…sounds objective to me.  Empathyâ€"a term related to my 4 ideas.  A form of awareness that I=You.  That your pain is mine.  One who experiences empathy is progressing well along the path to full consciousness.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I could respond by acting in accord with it, or I could respond by acting in discord with it.  I neither approve nor disapprove of acting in accord with empathy, nor do I approve or disapprove of acting in discord with empathy.  Empathy isn't a moral fact for me.  I don't subscribe to any anthropological context that makes empathy a moral fact.
Yes, you could.  And if you acted in discord with that empathy, you would harm “we".  And if you know that, you fully understand that, then you would be wreckless to do so.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
QuoteAnd if the answer is most likely "no" then why on earth would you do it?
Perhaps because I am a radical feminist who is so deeply offended by the wearing of the burka that I consider it my moral duty to make it stop.  Or because I have a conscience that is deeply offended by cowardice, and I am convinced that the woman in the burka actually hates wearing it and would yank it off on her own if only she had the courage, but she is a coward, and so I consider it my moral duty to yank the thing off her, so as to prevent cowardice, that horrible sin, from winning the day.  Or because I have a conscience that is deeply offended by anyone allowing suffering to occur if it can be prevented, and I am convinced the woman in the burka is suffering, perhaps from heat, but she keeps the thing on out of fear, and so I consider it my moral duty to yank the thing off her, because suffering must be prevented at all costs, if not by the sufferer, then by any onlooker with the power of prevention.
Oh, I can certainly imagine the myriad reasons a person could conjur for taking such an action.  I am aware, too, of the complexity of the equation when it comes to evaluating the harm to “we" that will come from any single action, however insignificant it may seemâ€"there is a great butterfly effect to every action.  And so even when we have achieved full consciousness, we are not yet perfect beings; we take on a new responsibility (or an existing one, with perhaps more urgency), to evaluate/collect as many objective facts as possible to help us determine the course of action in every day of our lives that brings the least harm, and the most good, to “we".

Consider a simple case.  There is I, there is you, and there is a proposed action I will take which will directly and immediately have an effect on you.  If it is possible for me to ask your opinion about it before taking the action, I propose that is one good place to start.  If you do not desire the outcome of the action that is strong reason for me not to act.  If you do desire the outcome, the reverse is perhaps true.

But the story doesn’t end there.  If your consciousness is not fully developed…if you are, say, a child…you may not know whether an action is harmful or beneficial to you in the long run.  And yet part of reaching full consciousness is learning what is good & bad for you and everyone else so perhaps I should simply hold you at your word no matter what and let you learn.

Yet one can also fathom appalling cases such as asking a child if it would like to be molestedâ€"how can one ask a child such a question when the question is nonsensical to the child and the child does not even comprehend the ramifications?  The one doing the asking, though, presumably has obtained high enough consciousness to be aware that such an appalling action is indeed harmful to “we".  The sociopath, who has not, may not know.  Those who do know will naturally be compelled to intervene on behalf of the child, if able.

So again the equation is complex.  And yet, unlike string theory…quantum mechanics…and so forth…the capacity to ponder and formulate the equation is entirely within every me and you in existence.  It seems the fastest thing we will learn should all of human achievement be cast under a new dark age in a dystopian future.  It requires no resources other than “we".

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
QuoteI might argue that if you did go through with it, you have an underdeveloped sense of "self" and "other" and you need some more schoolin' on the subject.
Apparently you would argue that imposing my will on someone else is immoral.  On what basis?
I argue that imposing your will on someone else, if you know that your will will bring harm to “we", is immoral.  If you do so not knowing better it is society’s job (those who know better) to help teach you and I have little doubt “we" will try.  If you do so while knowing better it is society’s job to teach you, until it becomes clear you are limited in your ability to know better at which point it is society’s job to prevent you from doing so ever again and I have little doubt “we" will.

As far as my limited understanding of eastern religions extends, the ideas presented here seem integral to some.  You might consider "enlightenment" to be similar to what I call "full consciousness".  You might consider Hindu notions of the system of reincarnation to be similar to one's position on the path to my "full consciousness".  Yet I would not assign any mystical/supernatural attributes to my idea.

[/walloftext]
[size=85]"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."[/size]
[size=75]-- Carl Sagan[/size]

[size=65]No hamsters were harmed in the making of my avatar.[/size]

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Well, let me ask you this.  Surely you must have some idea of where this will all take you?  As you currently see it going forward, of what utility will be the system of "objective subjective morality" for which these axioms will provide the framework?

First, the name.  The title of my thread was designed to get people to read the initial post and to draw attention to a key point, but the system itself would be better named, Contextual Morality, in my opinion, and I guess my opinion is the one that counts in this instance. :cool:

The utility of the system is its ability to combat moral nihilism to the extent the system is taken seriously.  I personally view moral nihilism as the main danger inherent in a poorly articulated or poorly understood atheism.  So many people conclude that no God means no good or bad, no right or wrong.  Contextual Morality provides an escape route out of there.  It does this by specifically denying that the only choices available are moral absolutism (which most atheists deem impossible, myself included) or moral subjectivism (which most people of any kind deem unsatisfying, myself this time excluded).  Moral relativism is a third choice, but it will only be a satisfying one (for most people of any kind) if it can be presented as a legitimate branch of moral realism, and as distinct from moral subjectivism.  Contextual Morality is my attempt to meet both requirements.    

By the way, here's a link to a good article on moral realism: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Moral Reaslism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Following the path laid out by the above referenced article, I will define moral realism as, "the perspective that there are moral facts available and possible to be known, and moral fallacies available and possible to be known as fallacies."

The words fact and known are key terms, obviously, and a main thrust of my approach is to claim that a fact need only be objective, not absolute, nor universal, but merely objective.  Thus a strictly relative, local claim can be a fact by virtue of being objective and being true.  Contextual Morality spins off from that starting point.

QuoteI doubt many would argue with the "objectivity" of the "moral facts" presented in examples you have used so far, but those facts (as far as I can tell so far)  say nothing about how we should hold one another accountable for our actions--the entire point of discussing morality, it would seem to me.

Yet I, for my part, would say that the most important thing is to be able to hold ourselves accountable.  I concede that many people fixate on what other people do.  In my opinion, laws are the best way to limit what other people do, unless you and the other people subscribe to the same anthropological context, in which case you may actually be able to win an argument about a quesiton of moral fact and actually convince other people to do as you would have them do.  Relevant laws or relevant shared contexts are necessary, in my experience, if one wants to influence the behavior of others from a perspective of right and wrong.  But before worrying about other people, I suggest we focus attention on ourselves.
   
QuoteCan you give an example, perhaps using the same Taliban test proposed already, of how your proposed system of objective morality will enable us to hold everyone in the situation accountable for their initial actions and resulting reactions?

It would hold each accountable from within each's anthropological context.  This means they could all be right.  However, some of them could be wrong, judged by the standards of their own contexts.  I would argue that you will never convince any of them to concede they were wrong unless you take as your starting point, with respect to each person, that person's anthropological context.  They simply won't listen to you otherwise.  So why not take this practical reality and build a system around it?  After all, maybe the practical reality is actually pointing us toward a philosophical reality!

I'm going to stop here and get some sleep.  I'll come back to pick up where I left off.  Thank you for your serious and thoughtful response.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Thus if I say that the Taliban will disapprove of me pulling the burka off that woman, and if I have stated a fact, then I have stated an objective truth.  Have I stated a fact?  To test this, first test whether the statement is falsifiable.  It is.  Next, either accept the statement as self-evident, or test whether it's false.  I claim the statement as self-evident, but I don't have to.  We could test whether the statement is false.  I merely claim that the probability of the statement being false is zero.  I say this because I know the Taliban will disapprove.  Knowledge consists of facts.  Facts comprise knowledge.
Well, not so fast.  I am no longer certain you really have even approached stating a fact in your example.  Consider the following:
1) How do we measure "disapproval" in your system?

First, let me make sure anyone reading this is aware that I have started replying to Persimmon Hamster's post in the middle, rather than the beginning, because I already (a few hours ago) posted a reply to the beginning portion of Persimmon Hamster's post.

Also, I need to set a ground rule for my own responses.  I'm not going to address the epistemological position of absolute skepticism, nor any sort of argument that would force me to address absolute skepticism in a substantive way.  Such a project would be far more difficult than anything I'm prepared to take on.  Thus I take as an operating assumption that it isn't true that no facts of any kind are available or possible to be known.  I'll call this the assumption of general knowability.

OK.  Preliminaries aside -

We measure disapproval by asking our Taliban if they disapprove.  If necessary to convince people, we attach our Taliban to polygraphs.  If scientific knowledge at the time of the experiment would permit, and if ethical considerations wouldn't preclude, we could even set some (currently imaginary) disapproval monitor onto the heads of our Taliban before besetting them with the sight of me pulling the burka off some Muslim woman.
 
Quote2) If I find some Taliban men who would not disapprove of such an act, then you will reject your statement as fact or at least recalculate the probability of it being false?

Yes.

QuoteTrouble is, your statement leaves much ambiguity.  #1 above is part of that, but there is more.  Define "Taliban"?  Are we talking about recent converts, perhaps uneducated youths who have just wandered into the "wrong side of the tracks" for non-ideological reasons?

If they tell us they're Taliban, they give us a general impression of being Taliban, and some disinterested party confirms they're Taliban, I'll accept them as Taliban, regardless of any other parameters, beyond age, which I'll require to be at least twelve.  If they're at least twelve, they will disapprove of what I did with the burka.

QuoteAre we talking about Taliban in an "unaltered" mental state, medically speaking -- no alcohol has recently been consumed, no mind-altering drugs?

Unimportant.  Sober they will disapprove, and drunk they will disapprove.

QuoteDo they possess vision?  Are they conscious?  Are they looking in your direction?

If they're blind, we'll tell them what I'm doing, and let them hear the woman's reactions, whatever they might be.  If they aren't conscious, we'll wait until they are.  If they're looking away, we'll draw their attention.

QuoteEt al, ad infinitum.

Here I'll invoke the assumption of general knowability.

QuoteTo call your statement fact, I must assess the likelihood of its being falsified...  To assess that, I will require a full definition for every term in your statement...  Can you provide them?  Ah, the relativity of specificity.

I think I'll invoke the assumption of general knowability here too.  I suspect it would be possible to parse almost any claim to such a degree that we start to doubt our ability to know anything at all.

No one seriously doubts that, generally speaking, if we're reasonably sure that those Taliban sitting under a tree over there are really Taliban, then it will be one hundred percent certain that if I start yanking the burka off some woman we're reasonably sure is a Muslim, those Taliban over there will disapprove.

But yes, if we were running a scientific experiment, then all sorts of rigor would be required.  Given whatever rigor you insisted upon, the end result would be that our Taliban disapproved of the burka yank.  It simply isn't possible for the Taliban to be real, the burka to be real, the Muslim woman to be real, and the yank to be real, and the disapproval to fail to materialize.  It will materialize.  We know it will, or else we know nothing about anything.  The rigor will only make the outcome more certain, not less.  

QuoteAre you aware of any of the so-called limits of logic?  I’m no expert but in my current stage of philosophical and rational exploration I have already encountered some.

I only know this much: there are logical propositions that cannot be proven or even expressed in first order logic, and so they are set up as constructions in second order logic.  I'm not a logician and haven't studied any of that at all.

Since everything else is limited, it doesn't disturb me that logic is.
 
Quote
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"What is your definition of objective morality?

Well, so far, I have not attempted to be very specific/discretionary in my usage of the term.  I think the most popular definition would be what might more technically be referred to as "moral realism".  The idea that there are moral facts, but not facts such as you propose (facts about subjective experience in a particular context).  Are there such facts?  If there are, what has any of that to do with morality?

Moral realism in its general form would stop at, "Yes, there are moral facts available and possible to be known."  As soon as we start bracketing off particular kinds of facts as being inside or outside our scope, we begin having to talk about particular moral realists and their particular writings, and having to remember that these people often disagree with one another on important points.  Contextual Morality, in its claim to be a system of objective morality, is claiming to be an assertion of moral realism in its general form.

QuoteI personally reject that "absolute moral facts" can exist in a form that most holding to moral realism might imagine.

I do also.  Except I don't know that most holding to moral realism would require moral facts to be absolute or universal.

QuoteIMO, no such fact exists as "any being which engages in sexual activities without specific intent to procreate is acting in moral error".  But I am not so quick to reject the idea that there may be some inevitable moral conclusion that one possessing enough intelligence/consciousness can arrive at -- if you will, a universal truth awaiting discovery by those who strive to understand it which has implications we would define as morality.  We could live our lives in complete oblivion about whether the sun revolves around the earth or the reverse, but the truth is out there, awaiting our conclusion should we choose to pursue it.

No one has discovered it in thousands of years of trying.  I would propose that humanity finally give up.  

Quote
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If the goal is absolute morality then I will provide us with absolute morality's only available dictum: "Have a conscience."  No other absolute moral dictum is available, for no other would be universal and therefore utterly general, and all specificity is relative.
I would perhaps phrase it as "have consciousness".  But do not stop there, examine what that means in its fullest sense, and perhaps you will find more utile basis for moral conduct than you expect.  This is essentially my proposition, I think.

Another way of phrasing the only available moral dictum of absolute and universal inescapability would be, "Have morals."  Violation of the dictum would be amorality, which I would suggest is the only absolute, universal sin.  Once I decide to have morals, I can pursue subjectivist morals or relativist morals and succeed in my pursuit, or I can pursue absolutist or universalist morals, and fail.  The reason I will fail in the latter is that having morals involves giving moral allegiance to something, and giving moral allegiance is a decision, and decisions are made by decision-makers, and decision-makers are inescapably relative and local, therefore their decisions are inescapably relative and local.  I can't make an absolute, universal decision, because I'm not an absolute, universal being.  The only way to have absolute, universal morality is to devise a system of morality that doesn't begin with moral allegiance to something; I.e., that doesn't begin with a decision.  Morality that doesn't begin with a decision wouldn't be morality, because morality's whole essence is tied up with decisions and decision-making.  

Hmm.  I guess our second dictum after, "Have morals," could be, "Make decisions," since making decisions is necessary for having morals.  Does that get us anywhere?

QuoteAlright, I’ll have a go at presenting my thoughts in a logical manner so that they can be more easily attacked.

I'll stop here and do my morning calisthenics.  I'll come back and pick up where I left off.  This is where your post gets really good! :)
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Please keep in mind that this is my first attempt to do so in any formal sense, so I may make mistakes, I may need to refine the arguments/terms/concepts, simplifications may be possible.

No biggie.  I'm after truth.  Let's see if we can find some.  

For anyone reading this who doesn't know, this is my third post in response to one mammoth post of Persimmon Hamster's.  See my prior posts above if you want the whole conversation.

QuoteFor the purposes of my argument I will use the following terms:

Me, Self, I â€" These are more or less interchangeable.  Either term refers to the sense of consciousness which I possess, as a being with a sufficiently complex mind.  Awareness.  Having moved beyond a for-all-appearances deterministic force to become one for-all-appearances in possession of “will" (of the apparently “free" variety).  I would work harder to define “consciousness" (and possibly therein find my failure), but from our previous interactions I think we are on enough of the same page there to proceed without more detail.

OK.  You're saying the possession of a will is somehow important.  We can disregard whether the will is free or not, unless you decide to make that a pertinent fact.  You're also saying awareness and a complex mind are important.

QuoteYou â€" This term refers to a sense of consciousness which I believe to be present in another entityâ€"one which I perceive as being distinct from myself.  But somewhat more than that, it refers to a consciousness like my own.

You might try the word sapience on for size.

QuoteOther, Not-me â€" More general terms than “You", these terms refer to any entity (conscious or otherwise) which I perceive as existing distinct from myself.  A rock is Not-meâ€"is Otherâ€"as are You.

OK.  You and I are Other with respect to one another but are also You and I.  A rock can only be Other.  It can never be referred to as You, or refer to itself as I.  Interestingly, every You is also an I, and every I, also a You.  This again draws attention to that word I like - sapience.

For non-human animals, we might introduce the term sentience, which we human animals share, and which is a pre-requisite for sapience, at least among animals.  Robots might some day have what we would have to call sapience, but without having sentience - which is a weird notion, I admit.

QuoteWith these definitions, loose as they currently are, my argument perhaps comes down to a single premise:

1) I cannot exist without You.

Is this proposition falsifiable?  I think so.  Think isolated baby with no human or discernibly intelligent contact allowed to fully mature in said environment.  Perhaps an unethical experiment, perhaps why we have yet to try it.  We find feral children now and then but that's not the same, not at all.

I capitalized the word You in your quote above.  It seemed right to do so.

So are you saying that if you took a baby and left it in the woods to die, and it somehow survived without the help of a sapient being, this baby, once grown to its fullest stature, wouldn't be sapient?  I'll assume you are - which means you're saying sapience can only arise if an I has a You to interact with.  One definite possibility is that language won't develop unless the learning process begins before a certain age, and that process requires that our I has a You to interact with.  I'll grant your premise.  Interestingly, this means we owe the human race* a debt of gratitude for our sapience.  That would be a moral fact for us, if owing debts of gratitude was something we acknowledged, which of course it doesn't have to be.

* I say the human race because our parents didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere.  They had parents, and their parents had parents, and so on, all the way back to our ancient mother Lucy.
 
QuoteNow, to expand upon that premise, to make it more understandable and derive meaning from it, I will present 4 ideas, or realizations that I contend a conscious being is capable of coming to recognize.  I list these ideas in a particular order; that is, the order in which it would seem easiest for us to come to realize them from the moment we begin to exist.

A) Selfness of Self.
I am me.  My existence is important to me.  I have needs and desires that are mine.
A sense of this would appear to have been hard-wired within me even before capacity for consciousness as we know it.

OK.

QuoteB) Selfness of Other.   
You are like me.  My existence is your existence and is important to you.  In this way, we are one.  My needs/desires are yours.
I develop a sense of this perhaps as early as in the womb, but at least as soon as my mother (and/or father) begins providing for me and asserting her/his otherness unto me.

OK.

QuoteC) Otherness of Other.
You are like me, but are not-me.  Because you are like me, your existence is important to you.  You have needs and desires, which may be like or unlike my own.
Others who are not-me and not-you also exist.  Others may have needs/desires, or may not, which may be like or unlike my own.
I come to know this as I enhance my sense of self to the exclusion of others, as I gain and assert independence, and as I see you ([m]other) assert yours.

OK.

QuoteD) Otherness of Self.
I am like you.  Your existence is my existence and is important to me.  In this way, we are one.  Your needs/desires are mine.
This is perhaps the last to be realized.  In some sense I can know this by becoming a parent.  But to fully realize it is to apply it not only within my immediate kin but on a global scale.

OK.

QuoteI cannot exist without you, you cannot exist without they, and so forth.  All are connected.  All are one.  We are one.

I'll grant that we're all connected but not that we all are one.  We aren't all one.  We are all Other.

What you can say is that You and I share the attribute of sapience.  Without sapience we wouldn't be You and I at all, but merely Other.  You can also say that we both owe our sapience to the species Homo sapiens.  But should we care about any of that?  If yes - why?

Quote---------------------
Once a person has fully realized the above, the inevitable conclusions include:

What benefits me, benefits you. What harms me, harms you.  What benefits you, benefits me.  What harms you, harms me.  We are one.  There is no true distinction between you and I beyond the illusion my immediate perception suggests (I very urgently, very tangibly feel my physical/emotional well-being but not yours).

Having disputed that we're all one, I would dispute the above.  Put it this way.  Somebody breaks into my condo and shoots me in the head.  I'm dead.  Are you dead?  Are you even injured?  At worst, you lose the opportunity to continue interacting with me on this message board - admittedly a tragic outcome. :(

QuoteTherefore my moral responsibility, when it comes to others (and others are required for morality to be an intelligible concept),

Incidentally, not everyone would necessarily agree with you that morality only involves interaction with Others.  There are people who consider masturbation immoral.  Or singing, even alone.  Or giving oneself a tarot reading.  Or driving a car on Saturdays, even if alone in the car.  Granted, these people tend to posit a cosmic Other with whom they're interacting.  But they didn't have to do that.  I could decide that masturbation, or singing in the shower, or giving oneself a tarot reading, or driving a car on Saturdays, is immoral for reasons intrinsic to human nature, regardless whether anyone but me is affected.

QuoteIs all of the above true?  Can I realize it?  Should I realize it?  Keep reading.

I'll stop here and let you respond to my comments above, since I see that what follows is based on what we're discussing above.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Inevitable Droid

Contextual Morality can be applied to the secular atheist anthroplogical context, as follows.

First, I'll explain that I selected the term secular atheist rather than merely atheist, so as to have the right to posit a particular political stance.

I think it's self-evident (but is nonetheless amenable to testing) that secular atheists disapprove of anyone forcing anyone else to engage in the hypocrisy of pretending to be theist.  Given that, it's highly likely (and amenable to testing) that secular atheists disapprove of the hypocrisy of pretending to be theist.

Given the foregoing, it's highly likely (and amenable to testing) that secular atheists disapprove of anyone forcing anyone else to engage in hypocrisy of any kind, and likewise disapprove of hypocrisy of any kind.

Hypocrisy is emerging as a secular atheist sin, whether engaged in oneself, or forced upon someone else.  Once we were confident of the accuracy of this, Contextual Morality would assert this as a real moral fact, a genuine, actual, serious, true moral fact.  This moral fact would have far-reaching implications, by which I mean to say, this moral fact would establish, for secular atheists, a moral dimension in a great many situations.

What's especially interesting is that hypocrisy as a sin would hit the secular atheist's will to be moral from two different levels.  First, the hypocrisy specific to the situation would be disapproved of.  Secondly, the hypocrisy of engaging in hypocrisy while claiming to be secular atheist would be disapproved of.  Hypocrisy would be both sin and meta-sin for the secular atheist.  Contextual Morality would say that all of this was real, objective, substantive, true - not merely some whim to be set aside out of moral nihilism.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

dloubet

Question: If someone is not trying to be moral, but inadvertently behaves in a moral manner, is he being moral or amoral?

This bears on the hypocrisy issue. If a secular atheist is not trying to be moral, yet behaves in what everyone considers a proper manner, is he being a hypocrite?

Wilson

Quote from: "dloubet"Question: If someone is not trying to be moral, but inadvertently behaves in a moral manner, is he being moral or amoral?

This bears on the hypocrisy issue. If a secular atheist is not trying to be moral, yet behaves in what everyone considers a proper manner, is he being a hypocrite?

By definition, hypocrisy is pretending to have virtues or beliefs you don't really have.  So I guess pretending to be a believer in God - to stay in the closet - makes one a hypocrite.  But that's a venal (small) sin.  The hypocrisy we get worked up about is a politician claiming to be a moral icon and turning out to be a child molester or partaker of prostitutes.  So unless the atheist in question is claiming to have virtues he doesn't have, he gets a pass in my book.