Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

The use of the term "wrong" is a value judgement.

Sure...the evaluative premise is required to go from an is to an ought (the deontology at the end).  It can't -not- be in there and still be rational or objective.  The term "wrong" is also a name for a descriptive set.  Actions or outcomes that share some important characteristic.  Saying that something is a value judgement does not threaten it's purported objectivity.  

You can list all the consequences of any action, as you have done, and they are factual.

Then my moral statement was filled with moral facts.  Does my moral conclusion follow from those moral facts?  

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

There's a really simple way to define either.  Bad is what harms and good is what helps.  I doubt that it's a useless notion for you.  I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that you employ it daily when making any decision that has a moral component.  Even further, that you have so much practice employing it...some moral decisions do not appear to be moral decisions at all, they've become..at this point, like swinging a bat or riding a bike.  Something that you just do.  Competent even in absent minded condition.

[robvalue]

Sure yeah, it’s objective within a subjective framework. The framework is the value judgement. Within it, you have facts and a conclusion. The framework isn’t objective in that you can choose any one you like. And as you say, you need the framework to begin with. It’s different uses of the words objective/subjective. You can make anything objective within itself. I feel we’re just arguing semantics.

[DLJ]

...
I really like this YouTube channel, I listened to various other very insightful videos.

Sorry to be late to the party.  

Yup, I discovered this YouTubist a few months ago.  I like him too.  I think the take down of Hicks' book was superior to the Harris one so I think he's still finding his niche and he's only going to get better.

I accept all the criticisms of my evaluations of the book. It's very weedy of me to be throwing out judgements based on some other guy's video, without having read the book. This sounded like a much better idea in my head!

Don't feel bad about that.  I'm with you.

I haven't read it because I reject the premise of well-being as a 'goes-without-saying, one true basis' of morality.

Whether that is actually stated in the book I know not as I have not read it but Cuck Philosophy (who has read it) has that impression and Mr Harris has said as much in other discussions and Matt Dillahunty has picked up on it too.

By jumping between ethics and neuroscience, Sam misses a step or two in the Design Stance by leaping between the Intentional Stance and the Physical Stance (Dennett's terminology).

At this point I would elaborate on the above by referring to the long piece I wrote on that in another place had it not been destroyed by The Digital ISIS.

 

...
To me, cultural relativism is more a matter of observation than anything else. I don't use it to make statements about what is objectively right and wrong, because I find such notions incoherent on their face. The article talks about being unable to criticise other cultures. What I don't get is why this even matters, except to make one culture feel good about themselves; or to try and justify some sort of forcing of ethics onto another society. "We are right and you are wrong, so you should change!" To me, the discussion is all about the underlying values. Do the different cultures have the same values? If so, are they applying them in a logical, scientific and consistent manner? If the values are different, can one side convince the other to be closer to theirs?
...

It matters because...

It's observation from afar and even quite fun when one travels for pleasure.  It can get a little more tricky when one migrates... assimilate or stand your ground or attempt to modify the host?

'Mass immigration' is where it gets from ethical to political.  

...
Here's the thing. None of our five senses or scientific equipment will ever detect "justice."
...
The problem is, however, since we can't detect morality with our five senses,
...

Lucky we have more than five then, is it not?

[robvalue]

Oh for sure, I’m all for trying to impact positive change. My point was that it has to be through discussion and the sharing of ideas, not just "statements of fact" that the primitive are supposed to just bow down to.

---

The difference between "moral facts" and more straightforward facts like finding the mass of something is that there will be much less agreement about what framework to use to interpret the data. It is of great utility for us all to measure length in the same way, and to use the same units (or just a few different types).

With morality, we'll each have our own framework, and so the "facts" then become specific only to us. There will be a lot of overlap, of course. I’d fully expect most people on the forum to agree with me on most moral issues. Some will go further than me in some regards, and I will go further than them in others. So we're using the terminology much more loosely when we each say what is "wrong", as compared to lengths we have measured. What is considered wrong also fluctuates as society changes too, while the utility of measuring length means it stays mostly the same. But of course, we do all have a rough idea what we mean by "wrong" because we're all familiar enough with each other and the kind of standards we have. If however I’m talking to a particularly nutty theist or someone from an entirely different culture, I will have to question it much more.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure yeah, it’s objective within a subjective framework. The framework is the value judgement. Within it, you have facts and a conclusion. The framework isn’t objective in that you can choose any one you like.

Can you, though, and is it?  You're assuming alot with that.  At the very least, we can't choose anything we like and be talking about the same thing.  If I contend that my moral framework is the presence, at the end..of chocolate icecream..will I be seen to be making a cogent and serious objection?  

It’s different uses of the words objective/subjective. You can make anything objective within itself. I feel we’re just arguing semantics.

The proper use of the term is important.  What am I saying here, other than that your use is objectively inaccurate, and trivial? Your idea of subjectivity boils down to the fact that people are choosing a system.  That's not entirely true, and it wouldn't actually make the system meaningfully subjective even if it were.

That's a comment on -our- construction. Not the construction of a moral system. Yes, we are fundamentally subjective beings...but unless you think that it is impossible for us to access objective truth, then there is no barrier in this to an objective morality that is not an equal barrier to any other statement of fact.

---

Oh for sure, I’m all for trying to impact positive change. My point was that it has to be through discussion and the sharing of ideas, not just "statements of fact" that the primitive are supposed to just bow down to.

Primitives, as a point of fact, have had alot of trouble with moral facts.  Constantly referring to opinions in their stead.  The idea of a moral fact is that it is something that can be the basis of discussion and sharing ideas.  A point of agreement on the state of things to work forward from.

---

The difference between "moral facts" and more straightforward facts like finding the mass of something is that there will be much less agreement about what framework to use to interpret the data. It is of great utility for us all to measure length in the same way, and to use the same units (or just a few different types).

Already making special cases.  A moral realist would reject this characterization.  Moral facts, like other facts, are so because they purport to report a fact, and the contents of that statement are true.  

The statement "x is wrong" is taken to be content and syntax equivalent to the statement "x is 12 inches wide"

With morality, we'll each have our own framework, and so the "facts" then become specific only to us. There will be a lot of overlap, of course. I’d fully expect most people on the forum to agree with me on most moral issues. Some will go further than me in some regards, and I will go further than them in others. So we're using the terminology much more loosely when we each say what is "wrong", as compared to lengths we have measured.

Having ones own framework will not change the nature of whatever facts might apply to it.  Consider two opposing moral statements.

Sexual assault is wrong because it harms.
Sexual assault is right because it harms.  

Both statements truth depends on some fact about sexual assault, not about the person making the claim.  If it is not harmful, they are both objectively wrong, lol.  If it is, then see below -

What is considered wrong also fluctuates as society changes too, while the utility of measuring length means it stays mostly the same. But of course, we do all have a rough idea what we mean by "wrong" because we're all familiar enough with each other and the kind of standards we have. If however I’m talking to a particularly nutty theist or someone from an entirely different culture, I will have to question it much more.

-and you can question...like a person might above with the "sexual assault is right because it harms" statement..whether or not those people are discussing "morality" - or something else.  Whether their terminology is accurate.

Is what we're talking about, when we discuss morality, a manner in which to maximize the pain and harm of ourselves and others?

Are you aware of the many different systems of measurement that have been tried and are no longer used? Don't you think it might be possible to do the same with moral measuring systems?

[Alan V]

But all you're really saying is that punching people is bad for their wellbeing.

---

Why does morality have to be any more than that?  Aren't we all suffering from theistic hangover and making this too complicated?

The details can always be argued in the courts.

[robvalue]

But all you're really saying is that punching people is bad for their wellbeing.

---

Why does morality have to be any more than that?  Aren't we all suffering from theistic hangover and making this too complicated?

The details can always be argued in the courts.

Of course, it can be that simple, but moral realists go much further than this. At least, some of them do. I’m trying to understand what they are actually saying, to see if it is essentially different from my perspective.

---

PS: I would say, "We agree that is a bad thing, good. Let’s move on...", whereas the realist appears to be saying, "No, I want to establish that you can’t disagree even if you wanted to, because I’m stating facts not opinions". I see no merit in this approach, so I’m trying to understand it better, in case I’m missing something. So on a practical level, I agree with you entirely.

[The Grand Nudger]

A moral realist is a person who contends that moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as the content of those statements are true, so too, are the moral statements.

In short, that there are at least some moral statements that are moral facts.

[robvalue]

I don’t get what the point is, though. Every (correctly formed) moral statement is a moral fact within the framework the person chooses to measure morality by. How could it not be? It appears to be a tautology. That applies even if I’m a nutty theist.

---

PS: This thing is wrong, because my framework says it is wrong. Sure, that’s a moral fact, but it seems trivially so. It’s not a fact that’s of any use.

[The Grand Nudger]

The point is simple clarity.

"This thing x is wrong because of something about this thing x, which is true"

or, conversely.

"This thing x is contended to be wrong because of something about this thing x, which is false"

Assault is wrong because of things that are demonstrably true about assault. Can this be said for every thing contended to be wrong?