(October 28, 2018 at 6:05 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(October 28, 2018 at 5:40 am)bennyboy Wrote: How many times are you going to say "we think" in attempting to demonstrate that morality is objective?

You've trotted out a list of things that people generally consider immoral.  That, I would contend, is because they are people, and there's a lot of overlap among people in their feelings and ideas about things.  You haven't considered the moral positions of bats or Volgons.

If a computer decided that X should be done (given some goal) and Y should not be done, would you call that a moral position?  I wouldn't.  This is because the computer doesn't have feelings about things-- it cannot be offended, or angered, or frightened.

My position is super simple.  Mores are a mediation among feelings, ideas, and environmental factors, but they exist only as ideas.  Fortunately, there's a word for that.

For whatever reason I'm imagining the way Jedi knights would discuss morality.  


Young Luke Skywalker:  But Yoda, how do we know the dark side is not an important advantage without which we will be ill equipped to face the Sith?  

Yoda:  Consult your feeling Luke.  Imagine a world in which we all tap into the dark side.  Is that the world you wish to live in, that you wish for everyone to live in?

YLS:  But Yoda, the Sith use righteous anger in the service of a world and a universe which serves only them.  We're different than that.  We would use it to create a republic which respects everyone's rights.

Y:  The dark side blinds you it will.  Once embraced perspective lost will be.

YLS:  So you're saying getting in touch with my inner Hulk just is channeling a motivation which is separate from whatever end goal I may have in mind?  That unbridled smashing just is ... wrong?

Y:  Got it you have.


So Yoda is a moral objectivist, Luke leans pragmatist and Sith lords -everyone will agree- are moral monsters?

I lolled so much!

(October 28, 2018 at 9:16 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 28, 2018 at 6:09 am)Khemikal Wrote: There are alot of words for positions that can make that claim.  Realism is among them.

I don't think moral reason can or does make the claim, "Mores are a mediation among feelings, ideas, and environmental factors."

You'd have to explain why you think that, or why you bolded the word feelings.  There's no obvious incongruity between the statement and a realist pov, realism doesn't deny the existence feelings.......or the need for moral systems to take them into account.  Misery is a feeling, the general proposition "Causing misery is bad" either purports to report a fact, gets that fact right..and so is true.....or it doesn't.

Quote:

---

The moral positions of bats or volgons would be different, because what it's like to be a bat or a volgon is different than what it's like to be a human being.  They will have different feelings about things.

Sure.  What may cause us misery may not cause them misery.  Hell, they might not even have an an analog for misery.  If that were the case, then we would contend that regardless of whether or not causing misery was bad..they don't experience misery - we can't cause misery in them..there is no relationship up or downhill between our actions and their misery, because there is no misery to be had. 

We don't have to search out aliens or wait for bats to talk to figure this out.  There's a reason that kicking a rock carries no moral importance.  They don't experience misery..or any pain...and so the things that we might do to each other or other misery experiencing whatsits..which are wrong, would not be wrong to do to them..or, at least not wrong for the same reasons.  

Objectivism makes an explicit commitment to mind independent variables like that, I don't know why people get an impression to the contrary.  

Quote:If you want to argue that there are statistically normal feelings or mechanisms in people which lead them to behave a certain way, then that can be an objective basis for understanding morality.  But even then, it doesn't make mores objectively real.

Statistical normalcy does not constitute factual accuracy.   Think about how many people in the us believe in some variant of creationism.  It's normal for USians to think that - that doesn't make it true, or make creation real.  Realism does not contend that it does.

(October 28, 2018 at 11:52 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(October 28, 2018 at 6:05 am)Whateverist Wrote: For whatever reason I'm imagining the way Jedi knights would discuss morality.  


Young Luke Skywalker:  But Yoda, how do we know the dark side is not an important advantage without which we will be ill equipped to face the Sith?  

Yoda:  Consult your feeling Luke.  Imagine a world in which we all tap into the dark side.  Is that the world you wish to live in, that you wish for everyone to live in?

YLS:  But Yoda, the Sith use righteous anger in the service of a world and a universe which serves only them.  We're different than that.  We would use it to create a republic which respects everyone's rights.

Y:  The dark side blinds you it will.  Once embraced perspective lost will be.

YLS:  So you're saying getting in touch with my inner Hulk just is channeling a motivation which is separate from whatever end goal I may have in mind?  That unbridled smashing just is ... wrong?

Y:  Got it you have.


So Yoda is a moral objectivist, Luke leans pragmatist and Sith lords -everyone will agree- are moral monsters?

I lolled so much!

Convinced you to step away from the dark side have I?

Even if you could "prove" that something or other is always moral/immoral now, that doesn’t mean it will always be the case, either. Socities evolve, and humans will evolve. It would be rather prophetic to say that it can’t possibly ever change, however you are making this determination of morality. It might at the very least become morally questionable, rather than a "fact".

The question that needs to be deemed irrelevant is: "Why should I care?"

Chemist: Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Detractor: Why should I care?

There is nothing in the universe that needs to make you care. If you don't care, you don't care. That has no bearing on whether or not something is true.

Science: aims to discern what is true about nature. If you don't care, you don't care. That doesn't change the fact that science can produce applicable truth statements.

Like the scientist seeks to understand the properties of nature, the ethicist seeks to understand if there are right or wrong actions.

Detractor: Why should I care?

Just like nothing in the universe will force you to care about scientific facts, nothing in the universe will force you to care about moral facts. Just because you don't care about something doesn't make it any more or less true.

Scientist: What are the properties of nature?

Logician: How might I arrive at correct conclusions?

Ethicist: How can I determine what actions are right?

It doesn't matter if you don't care about these questions. These questions will be pursued by those who do care.

People expect too much from ethicists. They want them to produce an entire and infallible rendition of the prefered oughts, seamless and complete. But they don't demand that of scientists. Scientists understand our universe step-by-step. First we observe stars in our own galaxy and note laws of gravitation. Then we discover that there are a whole plethora of galaxies. Then we learn that our universe is expanding. If only ethicists were allowed the privilege of learning the truth step-by-step.

Well, it’s not just about why someone should care, but if it makes any practical difference to anything whatsoever. If the answer is "no", then it can be assigned to be a literally academic argument.

Does it make any practical difference whether cosmic inflation followed the big bang or not?

Does it make any practical difference how our solar system formed?

Does it make any practical difference if stars in our galaxy are orbited by hot Jupiters or not?

Facts are facts. It doesn't matter if knowing them makes a practical difference or not. They are still facts.

(October 28, 2018 at 12:10 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 28, 2018 at 9:16 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't think moral reason can or does make the claim, "Mores are a mediation among feelings, ideas, and environmental factors."

You'd have to explain why you think that, or why you bolded the word feelings.  There's no obvious incongruity between the statement and a realist pov, realism doesn't deny the existence feelings.......or the need for moral systems to take them into account.  Misery is a feeling, the general proposition "Causing misery is bad" either purports to report a fact, gets that fact right..and so is true.....or it doesn't.

Because feelings are highly subjective, and they are they basis for a moral sense, and the essence of any moral system. Things are only good or bad because a person or collective of people finds them unpleasant.

And moral systems, in my opinion, don't take feelings "into account." They are the verbal representation of feelings. I don't think you can find a single more which is not at its essence just a verbalization of something that makes people feel bad.

Subjective feelings can sometimes supply you with correct objective information. Walk outside in the winter. You feel cold. That doesn't mean that (once we start investigating the matter) temperature isn't an objectively discernible phenomenon. It is.

There is a reason why mores and morals are distinguished from one another.

(October 28, 2018 at 7:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 28, 2018 at 12:10 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You'd have to explain why you think that, or why you bolded the word feelings.  There's no obvious incongruity between the statement and a realist pov, realism doesn't deny the existence feelings.......or the need for moral systems to take them into account.  Misery is a feeling, the general proposition "Causing misery is bad" either purports to report a fact, gets that fact right..and so is true.....or it doesn't.

Because feelings are highly subjective, and they are they basis for a moral sense, and the essence of any moral system.  Things are only good or bad because a person or collective of people finds them unpleasant.

I don't think that's true, personally.  

Quote:And moral systems, in my opinion, don't take feelings "into account."  They are the verbal representation of feelings.  I don't think you can find a single more which is not at its essence just a verbalization of something that makes people feel bad.

There are plenty of things I take to be wrong that I don't feel bad about. I'm sure there are plenty of other things taken to be wrong that are..more or less, just things that make this or that person feel icky. Those would not be "the preferred set" of moral justifications..to a realist.