|
|
Post by Mr Nobody on May 19, 2006 6:38:20 GMT 7
You misunderstood, Uber. My issue was that there cannot be an objective standard of morality. Morals have no external reality to verify, and cannot be objective. Morality is always subjective, otherwise it would apply to all life, not just people. There is no morality you can point at and say that this is true, in the 'metareality' of the universe, if I can coin such a term.
Joe is right.
He is also right about things like 2+2 =4. They were the assumed basic that underlines our maths at the beginning. Maths isn't the truth, it is a description by which we can approximate reality as long as we choose appropriate mathematics to use.
|
|
|
|
Post by uberzilla on May 19, 2006 7:58:31 GMT 7
Thus an objective standard of morality is whatever really is right and wrong.  Or, it's a subjective standard of morality that stands in for an objective standard and was developed via benign mediation of what is really right and wrong. Something we thought of, and didn't get wrong, and know we didn't get wrong. k? "and know we didn't get wrong." There is only one way to know. Like any area of science, focus & discipline are required to eliminate unnecessary variables, and remain as objective as possible. The reason: It is the only way to get to the truth. [quote author=joe board=living thread=1146557580 post=1147973625And there are useful mathematical systems in which "2+2=4" is not true. Here I will only respond with: Context is everything. (This is more then I wish to get into. My days of going over these things is coming to an end.) Morals have no external reality to verify This is an incorrect statement. This was addressed earlier. Morality is always subjective, otherwise it would apply to all life, not just people. Not all existents are the same. Morality is derived from the nature of existence of which existents are an integral part. There is no morality you can point at and say that this is true Joe is right. Yes there is. This was addressed earlier too. Maths isn't the truth, it is a description by which we can approximate reality as long as we choose appropriate mathematics to use. Math is an abstraction. as is morality. Both are based on the material world. Just as the material world - reality (existence) can never be false, neither can proper abstractions. There is a lot to this and I am in semi retirement, so this is as far as I am willing to go with this. There are others out there (other forums) who will discuss this with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Stil on May 19, 2006 8:10:32 GMT 7
In my little village 1 + 1 = 3 (usually about 6 months after the marriage)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Nobody on May 19, 2006 9:09:32 GMT 7
Neither are based on the material world. Maths is an abstraction manufactured in an attempt to approximate the real world with varying levels of success.
Morals have nothing to do with reality. They are agreed on social principles. They are a social construct.
Using your own argument:
Definitions
Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.
Influenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Objective: Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
MOrals don't have a physical existence, are always influenced by emotions and prejudices. They only take place in (some) people's minds.
Show me a "moral particle" or something. It has no real existence any more than the agreed upon rules of magic in society where a witchdoctor can wish a person to death. It is subjective. Like rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on May 19, 2006 15:51:26 GMT 7
There are two issues for an objective morality: reasoning and foundation. If there can be sound argument in any field, then I'd bet that there can be sound moral argument. So the key in morality is its basic assumptions about what is right and wrong. Clearly most if not all fundamental moral principles are social constructs, and arise for any number of flawed reasons. This will always be the complete statement about morality if it is not possible to observe (and then reason about) the basic conditions of all life.
Can we agree that something has to have "interests" before it can be the object of some moral code? Consider a stone. Does it have something to lose? Something to gain? Without such loss and gain is it appropriate to talk about things we should or shouldn't do with respect to that stone? A stone in isolation is a stone. A stone on Earth is part of Gaia. Does Gaia as a system have interests? Perhaps, but perhaps they are different in kind from the interests of a biological individual, or, hell, perhaps they're the same. It gets fuzzy.
Fuzzy or no, difficult to deliniate or clear, are interests not an objective basis, a true foundation? Or am I just invoking the Christian social construct?
Chinese don't seem to care about the interests of others. Are they immoral? Not automatically. Interests are and always will be in conflict. There are such a lot of interests out there, and there are higher and lower level interests. Cultural values are interests, as is basic nutrition, and they are very different.
Well known edicts like "Do what you like, but don't hurt other people" exist, but they are extreme examples of making "interests" be the moral key. I suspect for example that there will be times when it is moral to snuff out the interests of other people, but it'll be a damn complex equation that reaches that point, and I suspect no one will really trust it.
The gains or losses of others. Why should that be a basis? If there is no such thing as "interests", then there is no basis for the significance of anything.
And if there is no true meaning, then there is no should and should not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norbert Radd on May 19, 2006 17:05:27 GMT 7
most folks here just care about the next meal. when you're stuck in that lowest rung of needs, it's hard to think about anything else and then if you never read a book or had a talk with any one with half a brain, connect the dots.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on May 19, 2006 21:43:17 GMT 7
"Interests" don't have to be consciously held to exist. If they did, then for example, children would be as far down the moral food chain as practice could push them.
Identifying interests is unlikely to be easy, not least of all because there are so many competing interests. Identifying fundamental interests will be harder. Possible examples of interests might include what people commonly call "rights."
The right to life is probably an interest inasmuch as whether you accept it or not you would most times be cheated of something if your life was taken from you. Liberty is probably an interest. The pursuit of happiness might well not be a fundamental interest. The right to bear arms is certainly not -- it's a social construct of a particular culture --, but it may refer to a fundamental interest, that of Life. Your next meal may well not be a fundamental interest, but not being unfairly deprived of the one meal that would otherwise keep you alive may be.
The horsepoop routinely trotted out by the Chinese government on the "question" of human rights is at least a little interesting, and I wonder if it turns on cultural claims or not. Does the ongoing development of a society generate interests that beat out the interests of any one (small groups of) society member(s)? At first glance the interests of a society are generated by ongoing consideration of the interests of the members of the society (like I think the Chinese government is inclined to say), but can the interests of any one (small group of) society member(s) of that society be held up above the interests of that society (like the I think the Chinese government is well and truly inclined to deny)? Why is there that balance? Is it a numbers game? Why? What about the fact that government functionaries are far from being as monolithic as the State itself? Why are they allowed to curtail their own responsibilities as individuals to perform their roles as fists of the State?
Fun, fun questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by uberzilla on May 19, 2006 21:44:00 GMT 7
Neither are based on the material world. Maths is an abstraction manufactured in an attempt to approximate the real world "Neither are based on the material world. Maths is an abstraction manufactured in an attempt to approximate the real world"Do you see the contradiction in your statement Morals have nothing to do with reality. They are agreed on social principles. Ergo social principle are not based on reality. This is true in regards to the way things are. The fact however is that the way things are is not correct. Your argument supports the subjectivists ideal. That is: anything goes. This position allows any and all thugs to push their agenda on others. All dictators, militants, etc are supported by this position. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, too many others to list. Consensus never equals right. If the majority decide 2+2=6. It does not mean they are correct simply by sheer numbers. Using your own argument: Definitions Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. Influenced by emotions or personal prejudices Objective: Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices MOrals don't have a physical existence, are always influenced by emotions and prejudices. They only take place in (some) people's minds. Show me a "moral particle" or something. It has no real existence any more than the agreed upon rules of magic in society where a witchdoctor can wish a person to death. It is subjective. Like rights. quoting you: "an abstraction manufactured in an attempt to approximate the real world" and Just as the material world - reality (existence) can never be false, neither can proper (correct) abstractions. You have bought into a false premise. Here is an example of reality based moral: property right. By default an individual (our species) is there own property. This is based on the nature of the type of existent we are: autonomous beings. This is objectiveHere is an example of subjective based moral: property right. No one has property rights. Not even their personal being. They are to be disposed of as the leaders (leaders must pacify popular majority) of a society deem. Your life is not your own. This is subjectiveThe flaw in the subjective stance is as follows: You have no right to your life, but we have the right to dispose of it as we see fit.The second part connotes the right of ownership. The question is by whom? The answer: Anybody but you. This is the danger of subjectivism. I do not have the time to address all of the stuff involved here. Joe sorry I do not have time to respond to your post. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Nobody on May 19, 2006 23:18:01 GMT 7
Neither are based on the material world. Maths is an abstraction manufactured in an attempt to approximate the real world "Neither are based on the material world. Maths is an abstraction manufactured in an attempt to approximate the real world"Do you see the contradiction in your statement No, it is an accurate statement, not a contradiction. Mathematics isn't based on reality. It is a construct, the purpose of which is an attempt to approximate reality. It cannot be based on reality since it started from an abstract, but by rigorous usage, and disciplined minds, it slowly can be used to describe and approximate reality. The same idea exists in concepts like 'pink'. She has a pink face. What the hell is pink? there is no pink. We use it to label something that the majority of people label, abstractly and approximately, as pink. Not a reality, but an approximation. Mathematics, albeit more accurately and reproducibly (which is precisely the point of it) is the same. Ergo social principle are not based on reality. This is true in regards to the way things are. The fact however is that the way things are is not correct. What the hell is this statement? it has no place in this kind of discussion. You just used a majorly subjective comment to try to argue a subjective viewpoint. Your argument supports the subjectivists ideal. That is: anything goes. This position allows any and all thugs to push their agenda on others. All dictators, militants, etc are supported by this position. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, too many others to list. Consensus never equals right. This is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion. I never said it did. I said, and I quote, there is no objective reality. There are definately preferred methods of dealing with reality, but I do not confuse that with reality. OR my preferences. As you seem to be doing. If the majority decide 2+2=6. It does not mean they are correct simply by sheer numbers. This is precisely what I am saying. Using your own argument: Definitions Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. Influenced by emotions or personal prejudices Objective: Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices MOrals don't have a physical existence, are always influenced by emotions and prejudices. They only take place in (some) people's minds. Show me a "moral particle" or something. It has no real existence any more than the agreed upon rules of magic in society where a witchdoctor can wish a person to death. It is subjective. Like rights. quoting you: "an abstraction manufactured in an attempt to approximate the real world" and Just as the material world - reality (existence) can never be false, neither can proper (correct) abstractions. You have bought into a false premise. Here is an example of reality based moral: property right. By default an individual (our species) is there own property. This is based on the nature of the type of existent we are: autonomous beings. This is objectiveWhy? This has no reality. For most of the existence of humanity this ahs been false. I agree it is 'wrong' in a moral sense of the modern construct, but what has that to do with objectivity? Here is an example of subjective based moral: property right. No one has property rights. Not even their personal being. They are to be disposed of as the leaders (leaders must pacify popular majority) of a society deem. Your life is not your own. This is subjectiveThe flaw in the subjective stance is as follows: You have no right to your life, but we have the right to dispose of it as we see fit.Why is this a flaw? there is no substance to this argument. The second part connotes the right of ownership. The question is by whom? The answer: Anybody but you. This is the danger of subjectivism. I do not have the time to address all of the stuff involved here. Joe sorry I do not have time to respond to your post. Yep, I guess you are right, uber. You do not have time. Neither do I. |
|
|
|
Post by joe on May 20, 2006 1:27:53 GMT 7
Mathematics has a syntax and a semantics. The idea of syntax (symbols, things like "+", or these four letters together: "pink") as separate from semantics (meaning, what it is to add things, or what a pink thing is) is relatively new. Like several hundred years new. This separation caused an explosion in mathematical development. Mathematical systems could be and were explored wholly symbolically, even relatively recently to the extent of allowing systems where contradictions exist without triviality. Questions of meaning played catch-up. That words like "2" where originally developed in our language as a way of refering to what it was like to have things in both hands became, not irrelevant, but instead, not confining.
Mathematics doesn't get its meaning from reality anymore. It gets it from its re-application to reality, in a whole new host of circumstances.
The kick in the nuts that you weren't expecting is that mathematics is no longer bound to the rules of inference that tell us that two things put together with two things yeilds no more and no less than four things. There's systems of mathematics where sometimes it yeilds a lot of other numbers, and such systems aren't pointless. I don't know why, but they aren't.
Language is being investigated in the same way. Any language can be thought of as having a syntax and a semantics. Which semantics is the real one? What is "pink" really? Well... I'll tell ya.
The truth is out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by uberzilla on May 20, 2006 9:41:02 GMT 7
In my little village 1 + 1 = 3 (usually about 6 months after the marriage) Forgot to comment earlier. Yes this kind of math can sometimes be disastrous  There's systems of mathematics where sometimes it yeilds a lot of other numbers, and such systems aren't pointless. I don't know why, but they aren't. I am aware of what you are referring to here (I purposefully left it out of my response). I take issue with the way it is described. Maybe some other time. Good discussion gentleman  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Nobody on May 20, 2006 10:30:14 GMT 7
Yeah, Joe, the truth is "out there" all right.
...... If we can get anyone to agree on a definition of truth. Or, even harder, "Truth" (with a capital).
|
|
