Objective morality

[genkaus]

(14th April 2012 03:20)ChadWooters Wrote:  I think you confuse making reasonable assumptions in the face of absolute certainty with venturing guesses that defy inquiry.

I think you confuse the position of a reasonable assumption under idealistic metaphysics.

(14th April 2012 03:20)ChadWooters Wrote:  I'll take that as a compliment. Seriously though, I prefer to believe my metaphysics isn't really all that strange, just difficult to express with up-to-date terminology.

Its also not based on what we know or what we can show.

(14th April 2012 03:20)ChadWooters Wrote:  I'm basically starting with Aristotle by saying that people do what they think will make them happy. That raises the question of what moral standard best informs that decision? Everyone to a greater or lesser extent recognizes the 'is' of specific factual traits in nature. From these traits, they choose to either cultivate those traits in themselves as virtues or avoid doing so.

The traits of reality related to and required by life include integrity, the unity of parts into larger wholes, and harmony, the balanced relationship between the various parts that make up the whole. These traits can be identified in healthy animals, thriving eco-systems and quality artifacts (products of intelligent life). I side step the is-ought problem by saying that people make choices unconstrained by any 'ought' as to whether they want to go down the path of life or down the path of nihilism. 'Should' is not an obligation but recognizing the moral standard and incorporating it into one's life.

Now, here you lose your objectivity and allow your preconceived notions to talk. Where you see integrated, harmonic ecosystems, others may see constant destructive competition. Where you see balance, others might see constantly shifting and fluctuating paradigm of nature where the constant struggle is to unbalance the situation by becoming dominant and that any balance is simply an illusion apparent in a snapshot. So, competition and discord can direct as much towards Aristotlean goal of happiness as balance and integration.

Further, saying "should" is spelling out an obligation. When you say that one has an obligation to recognize and incorporate a moral standard into one's life - you are saying one should do that. So, here, you have not justified why your moral code for integrity and harmony is automatically the correct one or why one should adopt it.

[ChadWooters]

(15th April 2012 00:13)genkaus Wrote:  Where you see integrated, harmonic ecosystems, others may see constant destructive competition. Where you see balance, others might see constantly shifting and fluctuating paradigm of nature where the constant struggle is to unbalance the situation by becoming dominant...

Are these differences that make a difference? Just asking. As a thought problem, suppose I were asserting the opposite. Suppose I said that the ultimate moral standard is to struggle for dominance and amass power all to oneself, i.e. "might makes right." The consistent application of that standard has one set of results. Consistent application of the other principle leads to the opposite outcome.

The universal moral standard is like a perfect movie reviewer. A good movie reviewer is one that consistently steers you toward movies you like. The reviewer who always pans the movies you like is actually one of the best to know. You don't go wrong seeing movies he hates.

(15th April 2012 00:13)genkaus Wrote:  When you say that one has an obligation to recognize and incorporate a moral standard into one's life - you are saying one should do that...you have not justified why your moral code for integrity and harmony is automatically the correct one or why one should adopt it.

In searching for a universal moral standard, what I have found is a universal moral choice. True moral agents are those who have the rationality to recognize the nature of the options before them and the freedom to act upon the decisions they face. Choose to build integrity and seek harmony in your environment. Or choose the pursuit of dominance and live with both inner and outer conflit. No one is constrained by any external power (like God) to go either one way or the other.

So what I'm saying is that there is a universal moral standard, but only in the sense that it clarifies without compelling. An objective standard is like a ruler. You can try to draw a straight line by yourself or you can use the ruler. Your choice.

[genkaus]

(15th April 2012 01:10)ChadWooters Wrote:  Are these differences that make a difference? Just asking. As a thought problem, suppose I were asserting the opposite. Suppose I said that the ultimate moral standard is to struggle for dominance and amass power all to oneself, i.e. "might makes right." The consistent application of that standard has one set of results. Consistent application of the other principle leads to the opposite outcome.

The universal moral standard is like a perfect movie reviewer. A good movie reviewer is one that consistently steers you toward movies you like. The reviewer who always pans the movies you like is actually one of the best to know. You don't go wrong seeing movies he hates.

It makes a difference if you assert morality based on natural law. You are saying that things tend to move towards coherence and unity as a part of their nature and that this principle forms the basis of a universal morality. It definitely makes a difference if this principle is simply a matter of POV.

(15th April 2012 01:10)ChadWooters Wrote:  In searching for a universal moral standard, what I have found is a universal moral choice. True moral agents are those who have the rationality to recognize the nature of the options before them and the freedom to act upon the decisions they face. Choose to build integrity and seek harmony in your environment. Or choose the pursuit of dominance and live with both inner and outer conflit. No one is constrained by any external power (like God) to go either one way or the other.

So what I'm saying is that there is a universal moral standard, but only in the sense that it clarifies without compelling. An objective standard is like a ruler. You can try to draw a straight line by yourself or you can use the ruler. Your choice.

You are avoiding the question. Yes, it is my choice and I'm not being compelled to choose. So why should I choose your moral code of integrity and harmony? That would require another moral code that would to make the choice by - which automatically makes yours non-universal.

[Zen Badger]

(15th April 2012 01:10)ChadWooters Wrote:  So what I'm saying is that there is a universal moral standard, but only in the sense that it clarifies without compelling. An objective standard is like a ruler. You can try to draw a straight line by yourself or you can use the ruler. Your choice.

Please provide evidence of this universal moral standard.

[ChadWooters]

(16th April 2012 09:21)genkaus Wrote:  It makes a difference if you assert morality based on natural law. You are saying that things tend to move towards coherence and unity as a part of their nature and that this principle forms the basis of a universal morality. It definitely makes a difference if this principle is simply a matter of POV.

We have previously agreed that reality is that which exists independent of individual perceptions. In the common analogy, where some see the glass half empty, others see the glass half full.


Just to me clear, I'm not asserting natural law. As such we will always see strife and conflict.
What I see in the natural world are local and imperfect expressions of the ultimate reality. The All is complete, or one, which means it has integrity. Harmony is currently a bit of a stretch and for now, a working hypothesis.

(16th April 2012 09:21)genkaus Wrote:  You are avoiding the question. Yes, it is my choice and I'm not being compelled to choose. So why should I choose your moral code of integrity and harmony? That would require another moral code that would to make the choice by - which automatically makes yours non-universal.

Not fair. You're setting up an infinite regress. If I set forth a standard, then you say a standard is needed to choose the standard. If I give a standard for choosing a standard, then you'll want a standard for the standard for choosing a standard. That would get us nowhere.

Having a standard to choose still means you can choose not to recognize the standard. If I set forth objective standard by which to judge actions, anyone can still say, "Why 'should' I accept that standard?" You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

An objective moral standard would be a universally applicable something to which anyone could point as a guide for an ethical life and allows for rational discussion about how to apply it. One could still reject it, but idealy, if the standard were truly objective, one could not supply a good reason not to follow it.

This is the point where I return to Aristotle's 'Nichomachean Ethics.' Everyone pursues happiness because it is the good that all desire. To me the problem is not whether a moral standard exists (harmonious integrity or similar) or even the reason (happiness) for following it. The problem is recognizing the standard in a given situation and how it applies.

[genkaus]

(16th April 2012 16:49)ChadWooters Wrote:  We have previously agreed that reality is that which exists independent of individual perceptions. In the common analogy, where some see the glass half empty, others see the glass half full.

Which would mean that as far as reality is concerned, neither harmony nor conflict can be inferred as the natural state of things.

(16th April 2012 16:49)ChadWooters Wrote:  Just to me clear, I'm not asserting natural law. As such we will always see strife and conflict.
What I see in the natural world are local and imperfect expressions of the ultimate reality. The All is complete, or one, which means it has integrity. Harmony is currently a bit of a stretch and for now, a working hypothesis.

As of now, your metaphysical assertion of ultimate reality is unsubstantiated. Your assertions about its characteristics such as being self-integrated is even more so. I don't see any reason to use that as a basis for any morality.

(16th April 2012 16:49)ChadWooters Wrote:  Not fair. You're setting up an infinite regress. If I set forth a standard, then you say a standard is needed to choose the standard. If I give a standard for choosing a standard, then you'll want a standard for the standard for choosing a standard. That would get us nowhere.

That is why Hume's is-ought problem is still unsolved.

(16th April 2012 16:49)ChadWooters Wrote:  Having a standard to choose still means you can choose not to recognize the standard. If I set forth objective standard by which to judge actions, anyone can still say, "Why 'should' I accept that standard?" You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

An objective moral standard would be a univerally applicable something to which anyone could point as a guide for an ethical life and allows for rational discussion about how to apply it. One could still reject it, but ideally, if the standard were truly objective, one could not supply a good reason not to follow it.

This is the point where I return to Aristotle's 'Nichomachean Ethics.' Everyone pursues happiness because it is the good that all desire. To me the problem is not whether a moral standard exists (harmonious integrity or similar) or even the reason (happiness) for following it. The problem is recognizing the standard in a given situation and how it applies.

Let me tell you where you went wrong. Here you are presenting a set of moral standards that you call "universal moral standard". I don't think that your moral standard has what it takes to be universal, but let's put that aside for a moment. If your standard was universal, then it'd e applicable at all times and to all choices where morality is relevant.

Now, you also identified something as "Universal moral choice". I don't get the significance of the word universal here, but moral choice means it can be made with reference to a moral code, in this case, the universal moral code. This means that your moral code should tell a person why he should adopt that moral code as his own, because if it doesn't, then it wouldn't be a universal moral code.

On the flip-side, if the code uses itself to argue its own validity, that would be circular reasoning. That would defeat the whole argument. This is a dilemma where either approach would end up defeating your own argument and the reason you get into this is because of what your termed as "Universal Moral Choice".

Few other errors. An objective moral code need not be universal. Principles applicable in a particular time and place may differ without affecting the objectivity. Secondly, you have not been able to provide a good reason to follow your integrity-oriented moral code. The closest you came was from the natural law argument for integrity and harmony, but that was not enough.

[ChadWooters]

(16th April 2012 17:43)genkaus Wrote:  …far as reality is concerned, neither harmony nor conflict can be inferred as the natural state of things…As of now, your metaphysical assertion of ultimate reality is unsubstantiated…Your assertions about its characteristics such as being self-integrated is even more so….

An axiom cannot be substantiated. The integrity of the All is one such axiom. Integrity means being a complete whole. The All is reality taken as a whole. Suppose the opposite were true. The sum total of reality, the All, lacked something real. The All cannot be the All if it lacks a real thing. The missing thing plus the apparent All would be the actual All. Thus integrity is a necessary characteristic of reality.

If we consider the elegance of how physical reality fits together with all its constants and forces in perfect balance, harmony doesn’t seem to be that much of a stretch. I just don’t know how to get to there yet.

(16th April 2012 17:43)genkaus Wrote:  …your moral standard has [not] what it takes to be universal… If your standard was universal, then it'd be applicable at all times and to all choices where morality is relevant…

True. What I mean by universal is everywhere the same for all moral agents, even Klingons and Hutts, although application of the universal moral standard would differ according to the issues specific to their species. A standard is not the same as a code. A standard is like a ruler. You may choose to draw lines without it, but if you want to draw a straight line you let the ruler guide you. You can also use the ruler to determine the straightness of lines already drawn to determine which are true. Just as straightness is a real relationship within reality, we can compare approximately straight lines to the ideal truly straight line. (darn, I had to use the word ideal!) And no, straightness is not a made up construct of the human mind; it is a pre-existing relationship within reality that we learn to recognize.

(16th April 2012 17:43)genkaus Wrote:  …An objective moral code need not be universal. Principles applicable in a particular time and place may differ without affecting the objectivity…

Hmmm…objectivity refers to real things, actual objects with true relationships between them. I am saying that there is a relationship between moral agents as parts of reality to the whole of it, the All. In that relationship, parts only partially manifest attributes of the All, in this case the integrity of the All and its presumed harmony.

(16th April 2012 17:43)genkaus Wrote:  you have not been able to provide a good reason to follow your integrity-oriented moral code.

Because making reference to the moral standard guides one toward happiness. We strive for virtues that make us and our local environment more complete and harmonious, to make full the glass half-full.

[genkaus]

(17th April 2012 21:47)ChadWooters Wrote:  An axiom cannot be substantiated.

It can, however, be shown to be self-evident. If your axiom is expected to stand here, it must be shown to be so. Otherwise, anyone can make any inane and outlandish statement and escape the burden of proof by claiming it an axiom.

(17th April 2012 21:47)ChadWooters Wrote:  The integrity of the All is one such axiom. Integrity means being a complete whole. The All is reality taken as a whole.

Actually, integrity would mean more than completeness. It'd require consistency within the completeness to be considered integrated.

(17th April 2012 21:47)ChadWooters Wrote:  Suppose the opposite were true.

Now you are getting it. One way to show that an axiom is self-evident is by showing that its opposite is self-refuting.

(17th April 2012 21:47)ChadWooters Wrote:  The sum total of reality, the All, lacked something real. The All cannot be the All if it lacks a real thing. The missing thing plus the apparent All would be the actual All. Thus integrity is a necessary characteristic of reality.

Nice try, but no dice. Suppose the All lacked internal consistency. Then it would still be the All or the Whole, but it would not be integrated. Thus, integrity is not a necessary characteristic.

Besides, your metaphysical position of what constitutes the whole is also unsubstantiated.

(17th April 2012 21:47)ChadWooters Wrote:  If we consider the elegance of how physical reality fits together with all its constants and forces in perfect balance, harmony doesn’t seem to be that much of a stretch. I just don’t know how to get to there yet.

Fits together? What fits together? I see gravity pulling stuff in, electromagnetic forces pushing them away. I see the moon going further and the Andromeda coming closer. I see heavenly bodies constantly bombarding into each-other, not twirling around, elegantly to avoid collisions. I don't see a balance, just a momentary illusion of one with all the pushing and pulling and bumping and changing courses. That's not balance, that's chaos.

(17th April 2012 21:47)ChadWooters Wrote:  True. What I mean by universal is everywhere the same for all moral agents, even Klingons and Hutts, although application of the universal moral standard would differ according to the issues specific to their species. A standard is not the same as a code. A standard is like a ruler. You may choose to draw lines without it, but if you want to draw a straight line you let the ruler guide you. You can also use the ruler to determine the straightness of lines already drawn to determine which are true. Just as straightness is a real relationship within reality, we can compare approximately straight lines to the ideal truly straight line. (darn, I had to use the word ideal!) And no, straightness is not a made up construct of the human mind; it is a pre-existing relationship within reality that we learn to recognize.

I agree with you here, but I would still suggest on giving up the use of the word "universal". It has a specific spatio-temporal connotation which is clearly not applicable here.

(17th April 2012 21:47)ChadWooters Wrote:  Hmmm…objectivity refers to real things, actual objects with true relationships between them. I am saying that there is a relationship between moral agents as parts of reality to the whole of it, the All. In that relationship, parts only partially manifest attributes of the All, in this case the integrity of the All and its presumed harmony.

None of this would mean anything unless you can convince me of the soundness of your metaphysical premises - specifically, the integrity and harmony present in the All as well as what constitutes the All.

(17th April 2012 21:47)ChadWooters Wrote:  Because making reference to the moral standard guides one toward happiness. We strive for virtues that make us and our local environment more complete and harmonious, to make full the glass half-full.

That is unjustified. Your moral code has the purpose of achieving integrity and harmony - whatever that may mean - but there is no guarantee that it'd necessarily achieve such a fickle and subjective value as happiness.

[ChadWooters]

(17th April 2012 22:16)genkaus Wrote:  …integrity would mean more than completeness. It'd require consistency within the completeness to be considered integrated…Suppose the All lacked internal consistency. Then it would still be the All … but it would not be integrated. Thus, integrity is not a necessary characteristic.

How can the All not have internal consistency? Don’t the rules of logic apply everywhere at all times. The operations of physical reality work consistently throughout the whole physical universe. Mathematics remains eternally valid and produces consistent results.

(17th April 2012 22:16)genkaus Wrote:  …I don't see a balance, just a momentary illusion of one with all the pushing and pulling and bumping and changing courses. That's not balance, that's chaos.

You see that because you are only considering local events. Particular circumstances lack the balance of physical universe as a whole, because they are not complete.

(17th April 2012 22:16)genkaus Wrote:  …but there is no guarantee that it'd necessarily achieve such a fickle and subjective value as happiness.

Having a map is not a guarantee of reaching your destination. Even Aristotle said as much in his ‘Ethics’. He said that in addition to personal virtue you also need a bit of luck. A moral standard is a guide, nothing more.

[genkaus]

(17th April 2012 22:50)ChadWooters Wrote:  How can the All not have internal consistency? Don’t the rules of logic apply everywhere at all times. The operations of physical reality work consistently throughout the whole physical universe. Mathematics remains eternally valid and produces consistent results.

Rules of logic don't have anything to do with consistency. And as to the other point, there is evidence to contradict that. The known physical laws are mostly consistent but fail in situations such as while approaching a singularity.

(17th April 2012 22:50)ChadWooters Wrote:  You see that because you are only considering local events. Particular circumstances lack the balance of physical universe as a whole, because they are not complete. .

No, even when considered as a whole, the entropy (disorder) within the universe is constantly increasing. That is another thing that contradicts your "integrated whole" idea.

(17th April 2012 22:50)ChadWooters Wrote:  Having a map is not a guarantee of reaching your destination. Even Aristotle said as much in his ‘Ethics’. He said that in addition to personal virtue you also need a bit of luck. A moral standard is a guide, nothing more.

Actually, if you follow the map correctly and there is not bad-luck, then yes, reaching your destination is pretty much guaranteed.

The destination market in your morality road-map is integrity and harmony, its not happiness. And I'm willing to accept for the moment that your map would lead to that destination. But what about the destination of happiness? Where does that lie on the map? Does your route go through it? Is it possible that you might have to take a detour?