(October 12, 2018 at 1:34 am)DLJ Wrote:

(October 12, 2018 at 12:57 am)TTT Wrote: I mean there may be, if you consider ethics as  metaphysics. There is a fact of the matter of what the best action to take is. We may not know it, but in fact there is a "best course of action".

Also hiya, long time no see! I don't know if you remember me, I stopped trolling TTA 5 years ago. I'm so sad to see all of those old threads gone. Sorry I was such a pain- I tried to be at least a little entertaining to make up for it!

Khem was referring to morals not ethics.  A moral is first-person by definition.  

If we may not know it then no one can make statements other than "Nobody knows / only the gods know..." etc.  

Yeah hiya.  I remember you as a creative troll.  Personally I saw no need to ban you until you started creating cock pimples.     Chew toys were never a problem but when one moves into 'dick territory'... ah well.

Lol yep, I remember you being super nice. I tried to be humorous, but I think trolling is pretty disruptive. I was 13-15 at the time, so maybe that's a little bit of an excuse. My favorite character I did was Rinpoche, the guy who believed in HH Dorje Chang Buddha III- I think that was my last troll before I moved on to other things in life.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:19 pm)DLJ Wrote:

(October 10, 2018 at 7:46 am)Khemikal Wrote: I don't think the impasse is on account of us having different ideas on what morality is or what it's for.  Chances are we don't...but suppose we did.   

So, for example..let's say that I say the purpose of morality is to tell people how to act.  You say it's to perpetuate the species.  Well, yes and yes is an option.  These statements aren't mutually exclusive.  What if we had some that were, though?  A moral realist isn't committed to one single set of moral statements, insomuch as that all meaningfully objective and accurate moral statements - including competing moral statements..would be regarded as simultaneously true.   This is the basis of dilemma in a realist moral system.

Allow me to resolve the dilemma...

There is no such thing as an 'objective moral statement'.

There you go, job done.

No need to thank me.

Consequently, there would be no true right or wrong, then.  Can you argue that in good faith? The assault of a child, for example. Not...really...wrong. Only wrong as a matter of opinion. Subjectively wrong, based upon the interpreter and not the act. Is it wrong, "nobody knows".

There -have- to be objective moral statements, even if those statements are only epistemically objective, elsewise any positive moral claim is baseless. To hold to any moral system you must either accept that the statements made are objective with respect to some underlying ontology, or objective with respect to a system of axioms - the latter only pushes the can down the road.

(October 12, 2018 at 1:48 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: ...
When I play Fallout 3, I can switch between a first person perspective and third person perspective, no problem. It doesn't change what's happening in the game.
...

The sensory data you are receiving is still just sensory data whichever perspective you are using.

I'm assuming that you are using the same brain when playing in either mode.

(October 12, 2018 at 1:48 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: ...
I see little which delineates morals from ethics. If there is a difference, it's not a difference worth discussing... at least not during a debate which aims to find out if ethics/morals are objective features of reality to begin with.

To phrase it somewhat poetically, morality is about how you live with yourself whereas ethics is about how you live with others.
Although having said that, ethics (unlike morality) is applicable at both the individual level and the group (social / community / organisational) level.

Given the ambiguity of the terms 'objective' and 'subjective', I'm now wondering whether you are using them in the grammatical sense e.g. I vs. me?

(October 12, 2018 at 3:32 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:19 pm)DLJ Wrote: Allow me to resolve the dilemma...

There is no such thing as an 'objective moral statement'.

There you go, job done.

No need to thank me.

Consequently, there would be no true right or wrong, then. 
...

Truth is relational and so are right and wrong.

Truth is relational to an epistemology.  (The sense of) right and wrong are relational to a baseline/threshold.

So, yes, you can.  But bias is built in to this so ... no objectivity.

(October 12, 2018 at 3:32 am)Khemikal Wrote: ...
Can you argue that in good faith?
...

I would never use faith to argue anything.  Faith is one of the four major epistemological failures (FART).

(October 12, 2018 at 3:32 am)Khemikal Wrote: ...
 The assault of a child, for example.  Not...really...wrong.  Only wrong as a matter of opinion.  Subjectively wrong, based upon the interpreter and not the act.  Is it wrong, "nobody knows".  
...

Wrong for the child or wrong for the priest?

(October 12, 2018 at 4:31 am)DLJ Wrote: Truth is relational and so are right and wrong.

Truth is relational to an epistemology.  (The sense of) right and wrong are relational to a baseline/threshold.

So, yes, you can.  But bias is built in to this so ... no objectivity.

If I told you that because there was built in bias, science has no objectivity...what would you think?  

Quote:I would never use faith to argue anything.  Faith is one of the four major epistemological failures (FART).

It's a term meant to ask whether or not you actually believe what you're saying..or are just saying it to be a contrarian.  Any conversation can be stalled forever on account of pointless contrarianism.

-I think the sky is blue, do you?
What do you mean by sky and blue?
-Points up
Yeah, but what is up, really, and couldn't that actually be down from a diff pov?
-Points up
Are you sure you're not a mind in a vat and there is no sky?
-Points up
Is blue really real?
-Points up.

etc.

The answer, in good faith...is yes, you think that the sky is blue.  Well, similarly, if you contend that there is no moral objectivity..are you arguing that in good faith.  Do you actually believe that assaulting a child, for example..isn't really right or wrong?  

Quote:Wrong for the child or wrong for the priest?

What is a priest, what do you mean by "for", are children even real?



You fuckin with me right now bro?

It sounds like you’re saying there must be some objective moral facts, which line up with your views, because you’d be uncomfortable if there weren’t.

Expecting a subjective idea to be objective is a mismatch. Notice that saying there is no objective morality is not the same as saying everything is objectively fine. It’s saying you’re trying to use two ideas which aren’t compatible.

If there was some cosmic inherent objective morality, it would have to be arbitrary from our point of view, because our opinion about what it should say is completely irrelevant. Why should it even be concerned with humans particularly? The alternative is that you’re just promoting your own morality to be objective, and anyone can do that. This just results in an individual objective morality for everyone, which is just the same as saying it’s subjective. It’s either some feature of reality itself, or it's an artificial construct we make to judge things. It can’t be both. If we’re trying to model it, then we have no way of testing what this cosmic judgement might be for each action. It would be like a number coming up on a screen outside our reality. Why should anyone care about that?

Morality doesn’t do anything, it’s not some law of reality like other physical laws. It’s just a way of assessing actions against some sort of scale. If it was inherent, it would make no difference. Things would be exactly the same.

(October 12, 2018 at 5:09 am)robvalue Wrote: It sounds like you’re saying there must be some objective moral facts, which line up with your views, because you’d be uncomfortable if there weren’t.

Why would it sound like that?  I'm explaining that..as a point of fact (amusingly) morally consistent claims must be..at least, epistemically objective with reference to their system of axioms.  Even if there is no underlying ontological objectivity - epistemic objectivity is what makes any moral position true or false -for that system-.

It is in that sense that there must be some moral objectivity, at a bare minimum.  Not because it makes us uncomfortable otherwise, but because we cannot make a positive moral utterance without that tacit assumption.

You can't even say "I think that x is wrong because" without delving into some sort of epistemic objectivity.

I say it kicks the can down the road..because we only ask the same question again of the axiomatic system.  Does it accurately model reality?  We can kick the can down the road one more time if we recognize that the system of axioms is at least epistemically objective and say - "yabut, what if things aren't as they seem" - and that's pretty much the end of the road. A moral realist takes epistemic objectivity to be indicative of ontological objectivity. They take things for what they present themselves to be. It's a statement that purports to report facts, gets those facts right..and so it's right, it's true.

Quote:Expecting a subjective idea to be objective is a mismatch. Notice that saying there is no objective morality is not the same as saying everything is objectively fine. It’s saying you’re trying to use two ideas which aren’t compatible.

If there was some cosmic inherent objective morality, it would have to be arbitrary from our point of view, because our opinion about what it should say is completely irrelevant. Why should it even be concerned with humans particularly? The alternative is that you’re just promoting your own morality to be objective, and anyone can do that. This just results in an individual objective morality for everyone, which is just the same as saying it’s subjective. It’s either some feature of reality itself, or it's an artificial construct we make to judge things. It can’t be both. If we’re trying to model it, then we have no way of testing what this cosmic judgement might be for each action. It would be like a number coming up on a screen outside our reality. Why should anyone care about that?

Morality doesn’t do anything, it’s not some law of reality like other physical laws. It’s just a way of assessing actions against some sort of scale. If it was inherent, it would make no difference. Things would be exactly the same.

Laws of reality and physical laws don't "do" anything either.  Gravity isn't a thing that's flitting back and forth pushing shit down. They are descriptions of behavior. Yes, morality is a way of assessing actions against some sort of scale. If the scale is meaningfully objective, the propositions being considered are sound, and the means of inference valid..then the moral conclusion is true in the same way that any other thing is considered to be true. A moral fact is the same as any other fact. That's moral realism.

Moral realism has absolutely nothing to do with asserting that my morality is the objective morality. I may not be in possession of a single moral fact. That is the way that believing nitwits have misused the concept - but you can lay them aside, they're nitwits. Moral realism, in stating that at least some moral statements are true...tacitly contends that some, then, must be false. The false ones could be mine. They could be spread throughout every existing moral system. They certainly seem to be. There are at least some things that..when I step back and take an objective look at them, they're horrible...but when I think about how I feel about them..I can't help but feel that they are good and right.

My moral intuitions don't always line up with an objective appraisal, but sometimes they do. How about you?

(October 12, 2018 at 1:48 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(October 12, 2018 at 4:31 am)DLJ Wrote: Truth is relational and so are right and wrong.

Truth is relational to an epistemology.  (The sense of) right and wrong are relational to a baseline/threshold.

So, yes, you can.  But bias is built in to this so ... no objectivity.

If I told you that because there was built in bias, science has no objectivity...what would you think?  

I'd think I may have to agree. But I would argue that the methodologies have been designed to reduce bias as much as possible and have self-correcting mechanisms.

(October 12, 2018 at 1:48 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: ...
The answer, in good faith...is yes, you think that the sky is blue. 
...

Right here, right now, it is not blue
-Points up.
And not because it's night-time but because it's monsoon season and I'm 31 floors up (on a hill) and the sky is white.

(October 12, 2018 at 1:48 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: ...
Do you actually believe that assaulting a child, for example..isn't really right or wrong?  
...

Well, that's a different question. Now you are asking about my, personal, first-person singular possessive, beliefs.

I thought you were trying to establish objectivity.

(October 12, 2018 at 5:29 am)DLJ Wrote:

(October 12, 2018 at 1:48 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: If I told you that because there was built in bias, science has no objectivity...what would you think?  

I'd think I may have to agree.  But I would argue that the methodologies have been designed to reduce bias as much as possible and have self-correcting mechanisms.

Okay legit...so an objective morality, then, would be one in which the methodologies have been designed to reduce bias as much as possible and have self correcting mechanisms. A scientific fact and a moral fact are equals, in the position of moral realism. Moral realism doesn't deny -our- bias, it simply contends that it would be possible, even though we are biased, to purport to report a fact, get the facts right, and so...

(this is why moral realism makes use of things like reason and blind construction)

Quote:Right here, right now, it is not blue
-Points up.
And not because it's night-time but because it's monsoon season and I'm 31 floors up (on a hill) and the sky is white.

A case example of pointless contrarianism, lol.  

Quote:Well, that's a different question.  Now you are asking about my, personal, first-person singular possessive, beliefs.

I thought you were trying to establish objectivity.

No, it's not.  I'm asking you whether your objection to things being "really" right or wrong is made in good faith (in this case in the example of assaulting a child).  If you don't actually think that it's not really right, or really wrong, your comment was time wasting contrarianism and I don't have to address it. 

If you are objecting in good faith, and you can't see how or why assaulting a child is really wrong (or really right) then I can run with that - but I need clarity...so that I don't pitch straw and field a poor argument for something that you don't actually believe. Sound reasonable?

I still have no clue what moral realism is supposed to be. I appreciate the efforts to explain it, but I’m no closer I’m afraid.

It seems to either be about some fixed objective morality, or it’s about how any moral system must work internally. The former is garbage as I’ve described. The latter seems pointless. If we're designing a moral system, we can make it work however we want. It can be logical, illogical, consistent or inconsistent. What is "wrong" and "right" is completely up to people / societies / aliens / uber-beings / cosmic consciousness to define for themselves. We can objectively define outcomes of actions, but we can do so without any moral commentary. It’s when we step in and say, "So you should do that" or "So you shouldn’t do that" that a moral judgement has been made.

So honestly, I have no clue. If it’s some third option, I’m at a loss. It’s such a vague idea (morality) in the first place that trying to attach rules to it seems pointless. It would just be a way of evaluating what we see was a "useful" system, merely on its internal consistency. But we may view it as brilliantly good or vile brutality, regardless of its consistency. Like I say, if you compare it to gravity, we're trying to model outcomes. Gravity is doing something.

I’m going to keep typing until my fingers get tired. I know you all enjoy reading my endless drive. I really need to

(October 12, 2018 at 5:50 am)robvalue Wrote: I still have no clue what moral realism is supposed to be. I appreciate the efforts to explain it, but I’m no closer I’m afraid.

It's real simple.  Moral realism contends that at least some moral statements either do or could purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they would be true.  

Quote:It seems to either be about some fixed objective morality, or it’s about how any moral system must work internally. The former is garbage as I’ve described. The latter seems pointless. If we're designing a moral system, we can make it work however we want. It can be logical, illogical, consistent or inconsistent. What is "wrong" and "right" is completely up to people / societies / aliens / uber-beings / cosmic consciousness to define for themselves. We can objectively define outcomes of actions, but we can do so without any moral commentary. It’s when we step in and say, "So you should do that" or "So you shouldn’t do that" that a moral judgement has been made.

B-mine, is it, though..and can we?  You're assuming your conclusion in order to argue for it.  Can you change your opinion about some moral thing, say rape?  If you did change your opinion, would it change rape?  Is it just your opinion, whatever your opinion is - that makes rape right or wrong?

An objective moral statement, for it's part, would have to be logical, consistent, and factually accurate. In this concept, your opinions do not have the ability to change the fact of the matter, even if you do have the ability to change your opinions. Moral facts wouldn't be the only facts about which there were dissenting opinions, but that doesn't actually make them less factual.

Quote:So honestly, I have no clue. It’s such a vague idea in the first place that trying to attach rules to it seems pointless. It would just be a way of evaluating what we see was a "useful" system, merely on its internal consistency. But we may view it as brilliantly good or vile brutality, regardless of its consistency.

It's very specific.  A moral fact is a statement with a moral component that purports to report a fact and gets those facts right.  Further, what is moral may not always be useful or advantageous.

The suicide pact dilemma demonstrates this wonderfully...and we confront it all the time in our personal and collective lives.