Quote:ARGUMENT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC TEST OF REALITY (error theory)

1. If science cannot verify the existence of X, then the best evidence tells us that X does not exist.

I would say that it is irrelevant whether X exists or not. We can therefor continue as if X does not exist, or just informally say it doesn't exist. I suppose by using Occam's Razor, we can conclude it most likely doesn't exist. But we're talking about physical existence, here. You can't have abstract concepts "existing"; at least not in the same way. You can have information about things that physically exist, or you can have entirely abstract ideas that may have no bearing on the existent.

Quote:2. Science cannot verify the existence of objective moral values.

If someone is trying to claim OMVs exist physically, then I agree.

Quote:3. Therefore, the best evidence tells us that objective moral values do not exist.

Sure, but I don't see this as having anything to do with the discussion. The truth of a statement is part of an abstract system, so it's not supposed to physically exist in the first place. This error theory... is itself in error, for trying to categorise something incorrectly.

I'm very confused by how this is relevant. If we have some information, X=2 say, then there are facts that are true, given the standard rules of mathematics, such as X+3=5. That's a true statement. It is validated as true just by the rules of mathematics. But "X+3=5" doesn't exist, that makes no sense to me. It's an abstract statement.

I can say, "There is 30ml of water in this tube". Is that true, or not? If we allow for a certain degree of accuracy, then we can use science to verify this. We're asking questions about the existent. But the fact itself does not exist; that again makes no sense. I can't test for the existence of the fact.

---

(October 1, 2018 at 6:42 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Let me try for an objective morality.

I'd argue it by saying our objective reality, i.e. our DNA, takes precedence over our conscious reality.

Individually, we don't want to be harmed.  We have, from birth, an aversion to harm and an attraction toward pleasure.  Some of us have, to varying degrees, compassion for others, and it's by nature rather than by logic.  But we don't arrive at these wants logically-- they are our birthright.

Then we're born, we interact with each other, we experience suffering due to lack of resources, or a pressure to mate, and so on.

It's important to understand that the goals of any moral system are intrinsically emotional-- dying is bad simply because we fear it.  If everyone loved dying, nobody would care about murder.  Rape is bad simply because it is very unpleasant.  If girls deeply enjoyed getting raped, then we probably wouldn't need to stop it.  The reality is more complex-- almost all men dislike not having a partner (or multiple partners) to mate with, but there are some men who for whatever reason almost all women dislike the idea of mating with.  This leads to an emotional conflict-- do the men tie women to the bed and create a moral system which essentially institutionalizes rape, or do women (and sympathetic men, probably largely those who already like their mating chances) establish a moral system in which unwanted sexual advances will lead to an undesirable being removed from the community?


Emotions are highly complex and variable among individuals, but they aren't arbitrary-- they are the expression of a billion years of recorded interactions among our ancestors and their respective environments.

I'm not sure how useful all this is when we are tying to act with willful intent-- we are acting as though there is free will, and we are exercising that will in attempting to make a moral code, perhaps one which transcends the obvious practical shortcomings of the instincts which have thus far driven our moral systems.

Sam's version of all this, hedonic state, is impossibly complex and a bit naive.  It would require good calculations, and foreknowledge.  Who's to say that today's reduction of suffering won't lead to a tenfold suffering at some point in the future?

Very well put. I totally agree, the root of morality is emotion. We want things to be a certain way. If we didn't, there would be no morality. The universe doesn't care either way. It stems from our evolution as a cooperative species. This is why it overlaps.

Harris just asserts his own goals, and you're completely correct, you require way more information than we can possibly have to make some sort of calculation. You can only produce a best estimate. We could look back and call what we did "immoral" because it eventually caused lots of suffering, but at the time we were trying to reduce it as best we could. So were we moral, or immoral? It's a matter of perspective.

---

Converge! That's the word I'm looking for. Moral facts seem to assume that any (permitted?) definition of morality produces results that converge. But clearly, they don't. If we discuss things with people who share the same values as us, then we have a certain degree of convergence.

That's the key, to me. Do we share the same values? If so, great. Discussion can continue logically from there. There's no need to establish why we share those values, or that those values are somehow correct. If we don't share them, then we need to discuss why that is.

I'm working on a full response to you. But can I ask you something first?

Do you think the truth itself is objective?

**If not, I don't think I can come up with a satisfying answer for you. If so, I believe I can.

(October 2, 2018 at 4:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Do you think the truth itself is objective?

For me there is reality and there is our perception of reality.

What is true depends on the context that the word is used in.

I'm talking about reality, Mathilda, not perception. By "Truth" I mean an accurate description of that reality. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Go here.

(October 2, 2018 at 12:48 am)robvalue Wrote: Converge! That's the word I'm looking for. Moral facts seem to assume that any (permitted?) definition of morality produces results that converge. But clearly, they don't. If we discuss things with people who share the same values as us, then we have a certain degree of convergence.

That's the key, to me. Do we share the same values? If so, great. Discussion can continue logically from there. There's no need to establish why we share those values, or that those values are somehow correct. If we don't share them, then we need to discuss why that is.

I'd liken the biological expression of evolved traits as something akin to complex interference patterns on the surface of a body of water. You can trace each ripple individually, and know that it's going to have some effect overall as energy propagates. But what you really can't do is see how all those complex interactions are going to manifest in a particular square millimeter of surface area.

We all share one thing-- we are a record in time of a collection of wave-states. We have this in common-- that we are motivated to express those billions of years of environmental interactions, and to see if what has worked so far will work again.

(October 2, 2018 at 4:52 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I'm talking about reality, Mathilda, not perception. By "Truth" I mean an accurate description of that reality. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Go here.

My impression of Rob was that, in some contexts, he incorporates significant elements of coherentism. It might be pre-judging his beliefs to assume a correspondance theory of truth.

I think Rob is at his wits end because he thinks I'm saying something that I'm not.

Rob, you are making a bunch of excellent arguments for moral skepticism. I see exactly where you are coming from, man. And the thing is: it's not exactly clear if morality really is objective or not. If the matter was settled, there wouldn't be a branch of philosophy called metaethics.

It is rather exiting, isn't it, to be part of a debate which isn't remotely settled yet?... to know that actually one of us is wrong and the other is right. But not know which one? That's why I like to have this particular debate, btw. Intellectual gymnastics!

But I think you are getting hung up on what it means for morality to be objective or not. Well... let's ask then:

What does it mean for morality to be objective?

It means that it's like math. Math is objective. That doesn't mean "now everyone needs to be concerned with math in their lives because it's objective." Some people hate math. They may choose to live a life without using any math whatsoever. Fine. Let them. But it still remains that math is objective by its very nature. The answer to a division problem has nothing to do with someone's opinions or feelings about division. In the same way, the moral objectivist is saying that something's rightness or wrongness is purely a matter of logic and has nothing to do with personal/cultural feelings.

That's it: the moral objectivist says that morality is objective. This is to say: it has nothing to do with any cultural prejudices or personal feelings. That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Just because morality is objective doesn't mean anyone should care about it more than they did before. Maybe you hate morality and you think it's stupid and useless. Fine. But (according to the objectivist) it's still objective, regardless of your feelings about it. You might hate math and say that the best culture in the world is the one that shuns math entirely. Fine. But math is still objective, regardless of your feelings about it.

I hope this helps.

(October 4, 2018 at 12:03 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I think Rob is at his wits end because he thinks I'm saying something that I'm not.

Rob, you are making a bunch of excellent arguments for moral skepticism. I see exactly where you are coming from, man. And the thing is: it's not exactly clear if morality really is objective or not. If the matter was settled, there wouldn't be a branch of philosophy called metaethics.

It is rather exiting, isn't it, to be part of a debate which isn't remotely settled yet?... to know that actually one of us is wrong and the other is right. But not know which one? That's why I like to have this particular debate, btw. Intellectual gymnastics!

But I think you are getting hung up on what it means for morality to be objective or not. Well... let's ask then:

What does it mean for morality to be objective?

It means that it's like math. Math is objective. That doesn't mean "now everyone needs to be concerned with math in their lives because it's objective." Some people hate math. They may choose to live a life without using any math whatsoever. Fine. Let them. But it still remains that math is objective by its very nature. The answer to a division problem has nothing to do with someone's opinions or feelings about division. In the same way, the moral objectivist is saying that something's rightness or wrongness is purely a matter of logic and has nothing to do with personal/cultural feelings.

That's it: the moral objectivist says that morality is objective. This is to say: it has nothing to do with any cultural prejudices or personal feelings. That's it. That's the whole she-bang.

Just because morality is objective doesn't mean anyone should care about it more than they did before. Maybe you hate morality and you think it's stupid and useless. Fine. But (according to the objectivist) it's still objective, regardless of your feelings about it. You might hate math and say that the best culture in the world is the one that shuns math entirely. Fine. But math is still objective, regardless of your feelings about it.

I hope this helps.

Thanks very much for your responses

When it comes to talking about truth, it's an immense subject that I could say a huge amount on. I’m not really sure where to start so as to make it relevant for this topic.

If we assume for simplicity that we have sufficient language available to make a coherent factual statement about reality, one that may be true or false, then I think it’s reasonable to assume that the truth value is objective. This is after making a whole load of other assumptions which probably aren’t going to matter here. From the point of view of this debate, I feel this is sufficient, since my objections aren’t concerned with this.

But moral statements aren’t making factual statements about reality. They are making value judgements about actions taken. Since you bring up maths, I’ll try and use this as an analogy. A mathematical system is objective, once it is properly defined. Whatever we feed into it, we get a certain thing out, which is not subject to opinion. However, there are many mathematical systems. To just refer to all of them as "maths", without saying what system you’re actually using, isn’t sufficient.

Similarly, there are loads of moral systems. There isn’t just "morality". Each one of these can be objective in itself, I have no problem with that. But the idea of "objective morality" requires the description of a single moral system. Which one are we talking about?

There is only one possible way in which I can try to marry up what we're both saying here, and it would go something like this:

There is a morality function M, which is somehow intrinsic to reality itself. It is the "real morality". It produces a value for any particular action A. Thus M(A) is objective. The range of M is from -1 to 1, let’s say, where -1 is the deepest immorality and 1 is the greatest morality.

Before I continue, is this a reasonable interpretation of your position?

Quote:But moral statements aren’t making factual statements about reality. 

Sexual assault is wrong because it is immensely harmful to the victim and toxic to a society.  We have a duty to raise children who will not grow to become sexual predators.

There is a moral statement; it contains a virtue, util consequence, and deontological component.  Which part of it is "just an opinion?"

The use of the term "wrong" is a value judgement. You can list all the consequences of any action, as you have done, and they are factual.

I should have probably said that a moral system is built to make value judgements. So for example, in a system where harm to individuals and society is considered a negative, then that makes a lot of things "wrong", as per your example. Of course, I subscribe to such a system myself. Someone who builds their system differently may not consider it wrong, even thought the facts are the same.

We've been discussing an entirely abstract idea of morality, where good and bad haven’t been defined at all. I find such a notion useless, which has been my whole argument, but I’m trying to meet middle ground with Vulcan