News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Axioms of Objective Morality

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

Previous topic - Next topic

dloubet

QuoteSo I guess pretending to be a believer in God - to stay in the closet - makes one a hypocrite.

Okay, I wasn't suggesting that behavior, but I can see how it was implied in my "what everyone considers a proper manner" phraseology. Actually, I was thinking that the atheist in question was merely behaving in a polite secular manner, helpful and kind, and not actually lying to remain closeted.

I agree about the politicians.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Wilson"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.

Interesting!  Two different categories of hypocrisy - pretending belief versus pretending virtue!  This is why message board discussions are worthwhile.  Other people hit us (or at least me) with unexpected perspectives.  Why do you think most people get more worked up about pretense of virtue, as opposed to pretense of belief?  Also, couldn't the two be conflated in certain scenarios?  For example, belief in Our Lord and Savior could be viewed as a virtue by a certain constituency, no?  Pit an openly atheist political candidate against an openly Baptist one and set the vote in a bible belt state.  Furthermore, do you think hypocrisy becomes more severe, the more public it is?
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

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

Wilson

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Interesting!  Two different categories of hypocrisy - pretending belief versus pretending virtue!  This is why message board discussions are worthwhile.  Other people hit us (or at least me) with unexpected perspectives.  Why do you think most people get more worked up about pretense of virtue, as opposed to pretense of belief?  Also, couldn't the two be conflated in certain scenarios?  For example, belief in Our Lord and Savior could be viewed as a virtue by a certain constituency, no?  Pit an openly atheist political candidate against an openly Baptist one and set the vote in a bible belt state.  Furthermore, do you think hypocrisy becomes more severe, the more public it is?

People get more worked up about the virtue variety because it's implied that the individual is better than us peons who have moral shortcomings.  And yes, I do think we get much angrier at sexual hypocrisy by religious leaders and politicians - and that's partially because we don't like most of them, anyway.  Mixed in with the anger, though, is a certain amount of righteous glee, at the mighty falling.  I'm guilty myself of that sin of shadenfreude.

hackenslash

I'm going to skip most of this as having entirely missed the point or rooted in linguistic nits, or indeed already conceded.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
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.

Sorry, but no. All you're doing here is reasserting the existence of moral facts. Citing something as fact just because some people would agree does not a fact make. What one person or a group of persons think cannot be cited here as facts. Facts are absolute and universal and not subject to the whims, emotions and opinions of people or groups thereof (which is also a definition of objective, rendering my usage of objective as 'absolute' and 'universal' perfectly appropriate). Please, without citing what some people think, which is by definition subjective, demonstrate the existence of moral facts. Your entire argument stands or falls on your ability to do this, and the rest is irrelevant.
 
QuoteYou'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.

Dealt with above.

QuoteSo 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.

Dealt with above.

QuoteNor 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.

Well, here we have further disagreement, and it is more profound than previously, because I reject the entire concept of sin. Perhaps my mind could be changed if you could come up wityh a coherent definition of sin that doesn't rely on the existence of a celestial peeping-tom. As far as I'm aware, no such definition exists that isn't open to equivocation at the very least.

QuoteIt 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.

OK, I'll concede that, although I do not concede that any other definition of 'universe' than 'that which is' is entirely without utility. I only ever employ it in the sense of the universe as a whole, and any other usage is open to equivocation. I reject any definition other than that, because that's what the words means.

QuoteAverage 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.

Note the bold. I'll take it that you have conceded this point. Entirely subjective.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "hackenslash"Sorry, but no. All you're doing here is reasserting the existence of moral facts. Citing something as fact just because some people would agree does not a fact make. What one person or a group of persons think cannot be cited here as facts.

Joe thinks Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever.  Everybody knows he thinks that.  He repeats it on a regular basis to anyone who will listen.  Is it a fact that Joe thinks Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever?  I don't see how we can say no.  If we say no, we're saying we don't know for sure whether Joe thinks Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever.  But we do know for sure.  Anything we know for sure is a fact.  No?

You seem to be arguing that a truth claim acquires the characteristics of its subject matter.  Thus, if I make a truth claim about something subjective, that truth claim itself would be subjective; a truth claim about science would be scientific; a truth claim about art would be artistic; a truth claim about music would be musical, etc.  I don't see why a truth claim would acquire the characteristics of its subject matter.  To me a truth claim is either falsifiable or not, accurate or not, probable or not, known for sure or not.  Those characteristics adhere to the truth claim regardless of subject matter.

The above seems the crux of our discussion so I'll stop here.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

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

dloubet

QuoteNor 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.

Having morals is useless in and of itself. It only becomes useful when one behaves according to those morals. Having them gets you nowhere unless you actually follow them.

If a person was not trying to be moral but instead was honest, friendly, and helpful, just because he felt like it, how is that a sin?

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "dloubet"Having morals is useless in and of itself. It only becomes useful when one behaves according to those morals. Having them gets you nowhere unless you actually follow them.

True.  But before you can follow them you have to have them.

QuoteIf a person was not trying to be moral but instead was honest, friendly, and helpful, just because he felt like it, how is that a sin?

A genuinely amoral person will do absolutely anything to achieve what is desired.  Amorality is utter ruthlessness.  No creature on Earth is more dangerous than an amoral human.  Get in this monster's way and your life may be forfeit.  Only pragmatism and self-preservation restrain this creature.  What can be gotten away with will be perpetrated.  Man without conscience is demon.

A conscience may be subjectivist, contextualist, or universalist.  Any of the three will serve.  A fellow who does what he perceives as good because he feels like it has a subjectivist conscience.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

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

hackenslash

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"
Quote from: "hackenslash"Sorry, but no. All you're doing here is reasserting the existence of moral facts. Citing something as fact just because some people would agree does not a fact make. What one person or a group of persons think cannot be cited here as facts.

Joe thinks Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever.  Everybody knows he thinks that.  He repeats it on a regular basis to anyone who will listen.  Is it a fact that Joe thinks Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever?  I don't see how we can say no.  If we say no, we're saying we don't know for sure whether Joe thinks Babe Ruth is the best baseball player ever.  But we do know for sure.  Anything we know for sure is a fact.  No?

That's a statement about what Joe thinks, not a statement about baseball. As such, it is an objective statement.

QuoteYou seem to be arguing that a truth claim acquires the characteristics of its subject matter.  Thus, if I make a truth claim about something subjective, that truth claim itself would be subjective; a truth claim about science would be scientific; a truth claim about art would be artistic; a truth claim about music would be musical, etc.  I don't see why a truth claim would acquire the characteristics of its subject matter.  To me a truth claim is either falsifiable or not, accurate or not, probable or not, known for sure or not.  Those characteristics adhere to the truth claim regardless of subject matter.

Quite the contrary.

QuoteThe above seems the crux of our discussion so I'll stop here.

No, the crux of the discussion is the existence of moral facts, which you have yet to support. We can move on when you've addressed that, because I reject any and all claims to said existence.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "hackenslash"That's a statement about what Joe thinks, not a statement about baseball. As such, it is an objective statement.

Oh!  I think I get it.  I think I see what you're saying.

QuoteNo, the crux of the discussion is the existence of moral facts, which you have yet to support. We can move on when you've addressed that, because I reject any and all claims to said existence.

OK.  I think I get it.  The fact that people make moral judgments doesn't necessarily imply the existence of morality.  People could be making judgments about something that doesn't exist.  Baseball exists, so what Joe thinks about baseball is an objective statement.  Morality may not exist, so what Joe thinks about morality may not be an objective statement.

Interesting and enlightening.  I see now that baseball and morality might differ in a very important way.  When someone thinks about baseball, they're thinking about something that has a separate existence apart from what they think about it.  Not the case with morality, perhaps.  When someone thinks about morality, their thoughts may well be the sole substance of their subject matter.  By thinking about morality, they may be bringing it into being out of nothing.  Morality may be strictly a process of the brain.  

But is it?  Is morality strictly a process of the brain?  What about its behavioral component?  Morality as behavior can be studied empirically and logically.  Certainly that behavior needs to be interpreted and the interpretation cannot proceed without referencing the rules being followed by the individual.  To what extent does this differ from baseball?  Baseball as behavior can be studied empirically and logically.  The behavior needs to be interpreted and the interpretation cannot proceed without referencing the rules being followed by the players.  The only difference I see is the single set of rules governing baseball and the multiple sets of rules governing morality, but baseball and morality aren't at the same level of generality.  Morality is at the same level of generality as the overall category, sport.  Sport must be subdivided before we can talk about its rules.  Sport subdivides into baseball, basketball, football, hockey, soccer, tennis, etc.  Morality subdivides into Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Kantian, Secular Humanist, etc.  In sport, as in morality, once we know which game we're playing, we know what the rules are, and we can interpret the behaviors, and thus study them empirically and logically.  An anthropologist studying baseball and an anthropologist studying Catholic morality would have very similar tasks in a lot of ways.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

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

hackenslash

Morality certainly exists, but the very fact that people cannot agree on what constitutes morality demonstrates without ambiguity that it cannot be objective. Properly defined, objctive means, in this context, 'uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices'. Now then, since all our moral values are derived directly from our emotions, no such entity as objective morality can exist. Indeed, as soon as you talk about 'values', you enter the realm of the subjective.

Morality objectively exists, but not objective moralty.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

bandit4god

Quote from: "hackenslash"...since all our moral values are derived directly from our emotions...

Hi there, hackenslash, remember you from the ol' Dawkins days.  Hope you're well!

You're statement above gave me pause because I thought about the implications on evolution.  Is it consistent with the evolutionary algorithm that humans would have a better chance of surviving if they thought it morally commendable to give selflessly to another?  One might argue that all such morals would have been "evolved out" of human emotions, similar to what we see among the animals (exempting parent/child dynamics).

Persimmon Hamster

Hey Droid, it's been a busy week...no time yet to contemplate & respond to your posts (I did read them).  But I will get to it sooner or later.  The subject demands a large block of time in which I can give full attention.  So for now, just checkin' in.   :hide:
[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]

hackenslash

Quote from: "bandit4god"
Quote from: "hackenslash"...since all our moral values are derived directly from our emotions...

Hi there, hackenslash, remember you from the ol' Dawkins days.  Hope you're well!

You're statement above gave me pause because I thought about the implications on evolution.  Is it consistent with the evolutionary algorithm that humans would have a better chance of surviving if they thought it morally commendable to give selflessly to another?  One might argue that all such morals would have been "evolved out" of human emotions, similar to what we see among the animals (exempting parent/child dynamics).

Hey Bandit!

One could certainly argue that, but one would be in error to do so. In reality, even outside of the parent/child dynamic, reciprocal altruism is an excellent survival strategy, and selfishness is not.

Dawkins covered much of this ground in The Selfish Gene.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "hackenslash"Morality objectively exists, but not objective moralty.

There.  That was useful to me in clarifying matters.  Frankly, I always have doubted that objective morality objectively existed, but I couldn't precisely and coherently articulate why, and that bugged me.  I would paraphrase your statement as, "Subjective morality objectively exists.  That which claims to be objective morality is really subjective morality making false claims, which means it objectively exists but is in error as to its its own nature.  Non-erroneous objective morality does not objectively exist."

I fully agree with your original statement, and with my paraphrase.

The remaining question is whether subjective morality can be binding in an absolute, universal sense.  I raise that question on my Subjectivism thread.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

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

bandit4god

There may be a meta-argument we are overlooking here.  If you don't believe in the objective moral quality of honesty, why are you debating with eachother at all?

The fact that this forum exists and that we are all trying to persuade each other of our respective opinion is that we place an objective moral truth value on being correct.  Something like, "it is objectively morally better to say something true than something untrue on the Happy Atheist Forum."  Why?  Do you guys and gals ever wonder where that assignment of objective moral goodness to intellectual correctness comes from?