(March 9, 2017 at 6:04 pm)Khemikal Wrote: That would be moral opportunism.  The moral assessment, in that case, hinges upon the selective utility of a behavior rather than any moral fact of any matter.  

Yeah, the idea depends on the "existence" of a hypothetical best act, upon which an individual's attempts to act might sometimes stumble. In particular binary situations-- for example, kill someone or show mercy, you'd expect to have a 50% chance to get it right, but not to have knowledge yourself of whether you did. Thus the existence of alternative fiction novels where killing Hitler dooms the Earth, or saving Kennedy causes a revolution, etc.

Quote:It would get us closer to a maximally beneficial behavior.  

I'd define the maximally beneficial behavior as the perfect behavior.

Quote:No.  You may be able to say that Jims brain is objectively active in region X..you may be able to translate that activity into a verification of Jims firmly held opinion....but you are now talking about a brain..not ice cream, and whether or not chocolate is the best.   The latter remains a matter of opinion, even if the action in Jims brain is not.  The possession of an opinion, even if it is objectively verified as being possessed, as in your example...does not suggest or imply that the opinion itself is objective.

This is a very interesting situation, isn't it? Usually we are on opposite sides of this kind of discussion. I've enjoyed this thread for that reason-- playing Devil's Advocate is fun.

(March 9, 2017 at 9:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'd define the maximally beneficial behavior as the perfect behavior.

You are free to do so.

This does not make your decision to do so any less of a subjective assignment of value.

(March 9, 2017 at 9:57 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 9, 2017 at 9:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'd define the maximally beneficial behavior as the perfect behavior.

You are free to do so.

This does not make your decision to do so any less of a subjective assignment of value.

This point is readily conceded.  We come into the same problem with the God question: "Do you believe God is real?"  I'm ignostic on this, because the question is not defined well enough-- when it is, I'll always claim gnostic atheism, but when it is left open, I'm really not sure how to answer.  It's quite possible that for some definitions of morality, I'd argue it must be considered subjective.


But if you are arguing something like "There's no objective morality," then I choose to interpret that in the most generous term possible: "There's no sensible definition of morality which can be said to be objective."  In this case, I've already given an example of a definition that I'd call objective: "The capacity or tendency to act based on a sense of social fairness or balance."  In other words, not to look at any of the moral ideas at all, but at the moral mechanism, which to me precedes moral agency.

(March 10, 2017 at 9:45 am)bennyboy Wrote: But if you are arguing something like "There's no objective morality," then I choose to interpret that in the most generous term possible: "There's no sensible definition of morality which can be said to be objective." In this case, I've already given an example of a definition that I'd call objective: "The capacity or tendency to act based on a sense of social fairness or balance."  In other words, not to look at any of the moral ideas at all, but at the moral mechanism, which to me precedes moral agency.

Deliberately and explicitly committing the fallacies of equivocation and straw man argumentation is a bold strategy, I'll admit.

I'm just not sure of its actual value.

(March 9, 2017 at 9:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Yeah, the idea depends on the "existence" of a hypothetical best act, upon which an individual's attempts to act might sometimes stumble.  In particular binary situations-- for example, kill someone or show mercy, you'd expect to have a 50% chance to get it right, but not to have knowledge yourself of whether you did.  Thus the existence of alternative fiction novels where killing Hitler dooms the Earth, or saving Kennedy causes a revolution, etc.

Moral opportunism creates those "hypothetical best acts", it does not depend on their existence.  They are created by assessing what acts would present the greatest opportunity to an individual or group.  In the case of your example, selective advantage or fitness.  

Quote:I'd define the maximally beneficial behavior as the perfect behavior.

Defining them interchangeably means we can do away with one of them.   Could the extermination of all lesser intelligence be a selectively optimal but immoral behavior?  Similarly, couldn't a provision against killing of any kind be a moral and also selectively deleterious behavior?  

Quote:This is a very interesting situation, isn't it?  Usually we are on opposite sides of this kind of discussion.  I've enjoyed this thread for that reason-- playing Devil's Advocate is fun.

Opposite sides?

(March 10, 2017 at 3:29 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Defining them interchangeably means we can do away with one of them.   Could the extermination of all lesser intelligence be a selectively optimal but immoral behavior?  Similarly, couldn't a provision against killing of any kind be a moral and also selectively deleterious behavior?  

That's right. The kind of objective moral truth I'm talking about-- that of a hypothetical best action at all given moments-- is useless in establishing and acting on a moral system. Would killing baby Hitler have saved the world, or would it have meant that America never hit the level of ingenuity it has, with advanced sciences that might one day save the world from disease?

I also have to admit that there's an undertone of theistic absolutism under the hood. Genetic fitness of a species gives way to other philosophical issues if the species succeeds enough to colonize space, to evolve in new environments, and so on. Without fast-forwarding and seeing whether a super-species finds out a way to save the Universe from a cold death or whatever, it's hard to know what time scale "best" would involve.

(March 10, 2017 at 8:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That's right.  The kind of objective moral truth I'm talking about-- that of a hypothetical best action at all given moments-- is useless in establishing and acting on a moral system.

If objective moral truths are useless in establishing and acting on a moral system then...perhaps, you're not talking about moral truths at all?

Quote:Would killing baby Hitler have saved the world, or would it have meant that America never hit the level of ingenuity it has, with advanced sciences that might one day save the world from disease?

That would be a potential moral dilemma of consequentialism, but no dilemma at all for deontological ethics.  Most moral systems contain provisions for competing and limited sup-optimal choices, a concept of choosing the lesser of two evils.  Exceptions for the understandably unforeseen and the unforseeable.  Most moral systems make a distinction between a moral imperative and one's moral competency - our ability to, for whatever reason, adhere to the strictures of our moral opinions.  

What I think would more closely speak to potential objective moralities...is why you leveraged infanticide as the hook of the dilemma, and not just any baby, Hitler.  The "cure all diseases" part is explicit and fits with the metrics- this would be a selectively advantageous outcome.  But killing a kid...and why hitler?  Those two probably have moral opinions behind them...it would be those statements, themselves...that were the moral opinions in question.

Do those moral opinions, that make it wrong to do what hitler did or wrong to kill babies (or whatever it is about them that warranted their inclusion as the engine of dilemma), correlate to moral facts?  

Quote:I also have to admit that there's an undertone of theistic absolutism under the hood.  Genetic fitness of a species gives way to other philosophical issues if the species succeeds enough to colonize space, to evolve in new environments, and so on.  Without fast-forwarding and seeing whether a super-species finds out a way to save the Universe from a cold death or whatever, it's hard to know what time scale "best" would involve.

I don't know why the timescale is important at all?  Can't an action be the "best" for that moment?  Do we have to save the universe to present a clearcut example of "best action".  I'd aim lower, our day to day lives, our common interactions.

I love it when Khemical and Bennyboy go at it!

(March 10, 2017 at 9:46 pm)irontiger Wrote:

(February 16, 2017 at 1:36 pm)WisdomOfTheTrees Wrote: I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

 Is it morally good to murder  ?
 Is it morally good to abuse children ?
 Is it morally good to rape ?
 Is it morally good to steal ?
 Is it morally good to have a martial affair?
 and this list can go on

 If arbitrary what is right and what is wrong morally?

 Knowing it is absolutely wrong to murder can stop an individual from murdering while to say it is arbitrary wrong to murder can justify murder in one's mind

       It's an individuals morality vs group morality, Albert Fish felt it was not wrong for him to murder and eat children; mass society felt he was wrong . The Greeks and the Romans felt having teens and children for their own sexual pleasures was ok, and it was accepted by the society's at the time. Morality is revolving door. A better example that is more recent and less cringy, the cases of a Transsexual men and woman finally getting the rights they deserve. Ten or so years ago, they had to hide deep in the closet and reject their feelings. Some in society think these people are not moral people, but opinions have changed and now seeing a transgender person is not a major issue. They are just people who work and contribute to society.

       Now, can we honestly blame the Greeks or the Romans for their actions? I can't even judge them, it's similar to trying to judge a piece of art outside of it's time era. Can I judge Albert Fish for his actions? That is a tough question, both examples are major offenses in today's morality. I want to say judging Albert Fish is tough issue, but if I can accept the Greeks the Romans actions towards children in ancient times. Of course by default I would have to say his actions were extremely wrong.

     Now I'm curious on what the board thinks. If Albert Fishes actions were wrong, and the Romans and Greeks were ok by their standards at the time. Am I a being hypocrite to my own morality?

(March 10, 2017 at 9:46 pm)irontiger Wrote:

(February 16, 2017 at 1:36 pm)WisdomOfTheTrees Wrote: I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

 Is it morally good to murder  ?
 Is it morally good to abuse children ?
 Is it morally good to rape ?
 Is it morally good to steal ?
 Is it morally good to have a martial affair?
 and this list can go on

 If arbitrary what is right and what is wrong morally?

 Knowing it is absolutely wrong to murder can stop an individual from murdering while to say it is arbitrary wrong to murder can justify murder in one's mind

Do you really believe that?  If a would be murderer is open to being convinced not to do it, probably more than one line of reasoning will do the trick.  I doubt seriously that my telling him that it is objectively wrong for him to murder me will carry much weight.