Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[DLJ]

Here's the crux:

You and I, Rob, see this as 'consensus' rather than 'objective'...   As different people value different things we cannot reach the same kind of objectivity (impartially etc.) that we can with two or more scientists agreeing about the facts about the house or quantity of water in the jug.  

It's possible for people to reach a consensus..it becomes more plausible when we posit that there may be moral facts, however, those moral facts are not based upon that consensus.  
...

Sure.

I guess I'm not seeing the relevance of moral facts. Moral fiction can be equally as useful in reaching a consensus.

...
To put it even more briefly.  That there is a consensus (if there is) is far less important than how any consensus is reached. 
...

Maybe so. Was it Eisenhower that said that "the battle plan is useless; the battle planning is vital" (or words to that effect)?

Short answer: Nope.

Well, if I can't get you to agree that we're talking about something, if I can't get you to agree on at least one of what those things are, and I can't get you to agree that some statements may be true or false...how can we have a discussion about -anything-?

I'm not entirely clear on upon what you've asked for agreement.

I have no problem with the idea that we can label propositions true or false (or even partially true/false), although there can be 'true and false' and 'neither true or false'... as adherents to some forms of Buddhism and IT programmers will inform us.

I kinda like that.  

OK, we don't do 'souls' anymore and back then "common sense" is what we would nowadays call 'critical thinking' but it has a subtle mix of the biological event-process (sense), thresholds (conscience), duty, values and consequentialism; it also includes a focus on continual improvements of maturity and capability.  

Importantly it identifies what is actually at the root of a morality system... our sense of balance / equilibrium.

Is that an objective statement..or just your opinion?

It is a hemi-semi-demi-educated, professional opinion.

What else would it be?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure.

I guess I'm not seeing the relevance of moral facts.  Moral fiction can be equally as useful in reaching a consensus.

Moral facts are as relevant and useful as any other fact when it comes to making an informed decision, in my opinion.  

Moral fiction can be effective, absolutely.  So can moral subjectivity.  There are a wide range of situations where it may not matter...or matter much, whether you're in possession of moral fact, moral fiction, or a meaningfully subjective moral opinion.  OFC, when it would be nice to have moral facts, for an informed decision.....

I'm not entirely clear on upon what you've asked for agreement.

Good, so that's one out of three.

The other two were that..when we talk about morality, we're talking about -something-..and at least one of those things is well being. 

If we're talking about something (we are), and one of those somethings is wellbeing(it is), and propositions about wellbeing can be labeled true or false(they can be), then there is at least the possibility of a moral fact.

It is a hemi-semi-demi-educated, professional opinion.

What else would it be?

..............does a hemi-semi-demi-educated, professional opinion make use of facts?  Can it be constructed without one?

I think it might be helpful to seperate the issues of whether or not there is such a thing as a moral fact and what utility they have. Its come up a couple of times now...but... a moral fact being useless would still be a moral fact. A useful moral fiction would still not be a fact. Alot of worry about some other foot falling or what we would use them for is just getting in the way.

There really is no other foot. It may not be useful (other things may even be more effective). Moral realism simply states that at least some moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they are true or false. I note that you've mentioned a sense of balance or equilibrium. This isn't a competing position for moral realism or harm based moral realism. Balance, or equilibirum, is a rough metric of desert.

Heres where I would turn that question around. What else would it be? If any other statement purports to report a fact, and does get those facts right, we call it true. So, what else would a moral fact be, but a fact, if there are or can be facts?

Conversely, if there can't be moral facts...why? What about a moral fact makes it a "non-fact" when any other statement of it's type -is- a fact?

[DLJ]

Thanks for the reply.

I still think that the Rob/Khem disconnect lies somewhere in the definitions or the view of what morality is for... but I'll play along to see where this line of questioning leads.  It might be fun.

Sure.

I guess I'm not seeing the relevance of moral facts.  Moral fiction can be equally as useful in reaching a consensus.

Moral facts are as relevant and useful as any other fact when it comes to making an informed decision, in my opinion.  
...

Currently my gut instinct is telling me that I should go further and declare that the term 'moral facts' is oxymoronic.  I could be wrong and I'm open to being convinced otherwise.  

I'm basing this on the definition you provided earlier in post #117: "a thing that is indisputably the case."  Something might be OK by one person (i.e. no 'morality system' alerts are firing) and not OK by another person (their senses are tingling away like crazy).  So there's 'disputable' right there.

...
So can moral subjectivity. 
...

Perhaps we can leave aside the term 'subjectivity' for now.  We are obviously not using it in the same sense.  E.g.:

...
Community ethics, for example..is necessarily more subjective than autonomy ethics (and this is a good thing). 
...

I would argue that Autonomy ethics is the more selfish of the two.

Confusing, right?  This is why the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' have been relegated / reserved for types of metrics.

...
Moral fiction can be effective, absolutely.  So can moral subjectivity.  There are a wide range of situations where it may not matter...or matter much, whether you're in possession of moral fact, moral fiction, or a meaningfully subjective moral opinion.  OFC, when it would be nice to have moral facts, for an informed decision.....
...

OK, so it seems that here, 'moral facts' is being used in two ways:
1. Classification: An output of a Knowledge Management process where 'moral' is the information category and 'facts' is the information itself.  'A moral' being used in the sense of "a lesson that can be derived from a story or experience."    
2. Trigger: A 'moral fact' (indisputable to the individual, at least initially) would be the input to the Event Management process that would lead to an action; an input to the decision-making process.

...
If we're talking about something (we are)
...

With you so far.

...
and one of those somethings is wellbeing (it is)
...

I guess so. Well-being (quality of life) would certainly be balance-related... only topped, perhaps, by Continuity (individual survival and reproduction - quantity of life).

...
and propositions about wellbeing can be labeled true or false (they can be)

Fine with that, limited though it is.  It's still likely to be conditional.

...
then there is at least the possibility of a moral fact.

Only if the underlying epistemology has validity, soundness, reliability etc. Otherwise it would still be disputable and therefore not a fact, by definition.

...
..............does a hemi-semi-demi-educated, professional opinion make use of facts?  Can it be constructed without one?
...

Yes and yes.

...
I think it might be helpful to [separate] the issues of whether or not there is such a thing as a moral fact and what utility they have. [It's] come up a couple of times now...but... a moral fact being useless would still be a moral fact.  A useful moral fiction would still not be a fact.  [A lot] of worry about some other foot falling or what we would use them for is just getting in the way.

There really is no other foot.  It may not be useful (other things may even be more effective).  
...

  You lost me a bit with the feet thing, there.

...
 Moral realism simply states that at least some moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they are true or false.
...

So some do and some don't (whoop-de-do)... and here we are referring to facts as an output of the decision-making process e.g. It is a fact that I, personally, have decided that starving my family is not conducive with their well-being.

Fair enough.  It says nothing about whether there should be a general rule about this i.e. that I should be concerned about whether or not anyone else agrees with me or I should lose any sleep over the nutritional in-take of families on the other side of the planet.  

...
 I note that you've mentioned a sense of balance or equilibrium.  This isn't a competing position for moral realism or harm based moral realism.  Balance, or [equilibrium], is a rough metric of desert.
...

I meant it in the sense of balance being the evolutionary basis of the morality system... i.e. mind/mental stability / centre of gravity and thresholds (tipping points).  'Proximity' is another key factor.  

...
[Here's] where I would turn that question around.   What else would it be?  If any other statement purports to report a fact, and does get those facts right, we call it true.  So, what else would a moral fact be, but a fact, if there are or can be facts?

Conversely, if there can't be moral facts...why?  What about a moral fact makes it a "non-fact" when any other statement of [its] type -is- a fact?

I think I covered that above.  'A fact' (indisputable) is a fact.  'A moral' (a lesson that can be derived from a story or experience) is a moral. 'Moral' in the sense of the category of 'rightness or wrongness' will be different for any given individual regarding what that category contains.

Moral fact as truth ... this seems to be an unholy (literally) alliance of philosophy and science.
Facts (data and information) can be determined to be indisputable using the scientific method.
Truth (a label (T, F, T∧F, ¬(T∨F)) for a proposition for a given epistemology) belongs to the domain of philosophy and programmers (who will tell you that they are gods).

---

A couple of pedantic questions...
I notice that you use this syntactic format ' -word- '... I'm guessing that this is for emphasis?  I've never seen anyone use that before, is it common in your part of the world?  Where I come from that would be the same as ' (word) '. On the demised forum we had a South African guy who would use ' *word* ' for emphasis which I took to be a local thing.  
Also, were you on TTA as a user called Bucky Ball.  He'd been corrected so many times on his swapping around of it's vs. its that by the end I'd decided that he was doing it on purpose just to annoy the forum's pedants.  

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Currently my gut instinct is telling me that I should go further and declare that the term 'moral facts' is oxymoronic.  I could be wrong and I'm open to being convinced otherwise.  

I'm basing this on the definition you provided earlier in post #117: "a thing that is indisputably the case."  Something might be OK by one person (i.e. no 'morality system' alerts are firing) and not OK by another person (their senses are tingling away like crazy).  So there's 'disputable' right there.

Ask a creationist whether evolutionary biology is indisputably the case.  I think you're failing to read an important distinction there - that some person can disagree does not mean that something is meaningfully disputable.

I can dispute that your name is whatever you say it is.  That's the objection you've just fielded...to moral realism.

-but okay.  A moral realist will tell you that the existence of objective moral statements would not preclude moral disagreement.  Or, in the other direction..that the existence of moral disagreement does not threaten moral objectivity. 

Perhaps we can leave aside the term 'subjectivity' for now.  We are obviously not using it in the same sense.  E.g.:

I would argue that Autonomy ethics is the more selfish of the two.

Confusing, right?  This is why the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' have been relegated / reserved for types of metrics.

Not to me.  Yes, people can be selfish, but that doesn't mean that they based their moral system on that selfishness.  That would make a moral system -meaningfully- subjective.  That people are selfish doesn't make purportedly objective moral statements subjective.  

I'm selfish, does that change something about the act of assault?  If I really wanted to hit you...would that make it a good thing?  A moral realist could say no.  It's a bad thing we might want to do.  Happens all the time.  That moral statements might be facts would not change -that- fact.  

(my comment about community ethics being the more subjective of the two is in reference to the fact that even if it were only a community of two, community ethics necessitates some concern for the subjective requirements of the other and our relationships with them.  

OK, so it seems that here, 'moral facts' is being used in two ways:
1. Classification: An output of a Knowledge Management process where 'moral' is the information category and 'facts' is the information itself.  'A moral' being used in the sense of "a lesson that can be derived from a story or experience."    
2. Trigger: A 'moral fact' (indisputable to the individual, at least initially) would be the input to the Event Management process that would lead to an action; an input to the decision-making process.

It's being used in one way, the same way it's used in any other context.  That is what the position of moral realism is.  

If by "lesson" you mean that a person can be convinced that being punched in the face hurts - by being punched in the face..sure.  The moral fact behind the moral statement "punching people in the face is wrong" - is that it's harmful.  That it hurts.  

The second use is not relevant at all, considering the above.  Moral facts -will- be disputed, if there are moral facts.  

Fine with that, limited though it is.  It's still likely to be conditional.

All known truth is conditional.  That's the essence of a logical statement.  If, and if, then-

Only if the underlying epistemology has validity, soundness, reliability etc. Otherwise it would still be disputable and therefore not a fact, by definition.  

It would be "disputable" even if it were..but yes...that's a requirement of an objective morality.  The form must be valid.  The statements must be sound.  

If hurting people is wrong
and if some action hurts people
then this action is, broadly speaking, wrong.  

Hell, lets include every things that slithers swims flies or burrows.  

If causing harm is wrong
and if some action causes harm
then this action is, broadly speaking, wrong.  

Now....that statement being true, we could fill in the specifics with whatever, would not mean that there wasn't someone, somewhere, in some situation, that would argue against the conclusion.  They might provide a compelling reason to hit some asshole in the face (or kill him, even).  Hell, they might even provide a compelling subjective reason.  They hate that motherfucker so much because of x y and z and having heard it now we all hate him too!

However, those would be compelling reasons to act against the normative ethics of the moral conclusion above.  It doesn't change the conclusion.  Harm is still wrong, you're still harming the person.  

Yes and yes. 

You can construct a semi educated professional opinion without the use of at least one fact?  

So some do and some don't (whoop-de-do)... and here we are referring to facts as an output of the decision-making process e.g. It is a fact that I, personally, have decided that starving my family is not conducive with their well-being.

Is that decision meaningfully based on you..or on something about the act of starving a family?  Yes, you may have decided..but had you decided otherwise, would something about the act of starving a family change.

-but yeah..moral realism does contend that at least some moral statements purport to report facts, don;t get the facts right, and are then false on account of that.  

Fair enough.  It says nothing about whether there should be a general rule about this i.e. that I should be concerned about whether or not anyone else agrees with me or I should lose any sleep over the nutritional in-take of families on the other side of the planet.  

If it's objective..then it does suggest a general rule.  Starving families is a bad thing, regardless of what you decide or whether you care.  Regardless of whose family.  That's the general rule.  

I notice that in many of your comments you choose to emphasize your personal agency ad it's involvement in moral decisions.  This is driving your idea of what is being discussed when we use the term objective or subjective in a moral context.  A moral realist is not contending otherwise.  Yes, you're involved..yes, others are involved...no they don't always agree.  If you were (or are) living in a universe where there are moral facts..all of that can be (or is) simultaneously true.  

So, yes, you decided this, others would not decide that, we all make decisions.  Moral subjectivity and objectivity makes a distinction between the basis of those decisions, not on the presence of an agent.  A moral agent is always present in any moral decision.  Just like you are always present whenever you refer to any other fact.  If it's a problem for one, it's a problem for both..or more accurately..all.  



*Nope, I think Bucky is here now, though!  So...more new friends! 

Yeah, it's emphasis, I use ital too.

[DLJ]

...
You can construct a semi educated professional opinion without the use of at least one fact?  
...

Have you never met an evangelical preacher?



I think I'm going to leave it there. Thank you for your time and patience.

Sadly, I don't think I'm any further forward in understanding your perspective on morality except maybe that Moral Realists want to ban boxing.

Perhaps this failure on my part stems from a fundamental difference regarding what we think morality actually is and what it's for.

Sometime soon I'll start a new thread to discuss morality and consciousness with Rob as we seem to be on the same page, or at least reading the same chapter of this big book of Life, The Universe and Everything.

Cheers
DLJ

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[DLJ]

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.

[TTT]

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.

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!

[DLJ]

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.

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.

[vulcanlogician]

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

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.

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.