Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

If the normative goal is utility, and there is no loss of utility - then there's no problem regardless of and even if destruction was done.

Destroy away, am I right, destruction is not what we concern ourselves with.  I do think this explains alot of humans worst environmental behaviors.  They're destructive..and even self injurious, but utilitarian.

Yes, that seems to be the case.  Without anthropomorphizing the Earth, we apply less value to the destructive change of state than we do to constructive ones that result-- nice car, bigger house, and so on.  Good luck trying to tell people that "Mother Earth is falling deathly ill," though.

[bennyboy]

Some people don't agree that destruction is part of moral content or of moral import, even if it (as in destruction) is real, and I guess that would seem like an equivocation to them - but obviously not to me.

It would seem that if there were a mountain, and someone dynamited that mountain, there would be (and is) a great deal of differentiation between those two states of mountain - and not mountain, regardless of whether or not this was (or what you, or what I) would take to be an item of moral import.

Learn what a vector is.

It's equivocation regardless of moral import.  Utility is teleological and without a loss in utility, there is no destruction.  You simply don't get it from the universe herself.

Well wait a minute.  Destroy comes from the roots, "de-" (away) + "struere" (build)

So any complex or composite form, if it loses its form, is destroyed.  Certainly, a mountain has a form that a pile of rubble does not, and can be destroyed by dynamite.

However, is it bad to destroy a mountain, or is the mountain "harmed?"  I'm not sure that can be true unless someone has feelings about that change of state.

[The Grand Nudger]

The mountain is harmed exactly as the mountain is destroyed even if it is not bad - this is the same argument all over again. To be fair, it's always bad if you ask me.

-I'm perfectly comfortable saying that we harm all that we destroy. That might be why ethics tends to watch over destruction, or harm, with a keen eye, as items of moral import. You mentioned before that you had to believe that x was not moral content, otherwise you'd be responsible for a whole lot of bad shit. I don't. We are responsible for a whole lot of bad shit. We often call it necessary, and it may be in at least some cases, but a necessary evil is still..evil.

Get off my lawn is not a cognitive statement. You can revise the other statement for consideration into one that is, you could say, for example, that more population = discomfort, harm, destruction...ofc.... which is yet another realist contention. True or false with respect to whatever facts it purports to report.

You actually aren't going to be able to have any dispute of fact over facts with me, that isn't a contention to fact itself - and as realism is premised on a completely non-novel understanding of factuality or truth.....you will inevitably be reduced to suggesting that we get those facts wrong - which is a cognitivist error theory- that any realist is more than happy to agree with. We do morality alot of ways, not exhausted by the set of realist values of inferences. We do make purported realist statements that are in error because they are subjectivist, instead. We do make purported realist statements that are in error because they are emotivist, instead. Sometimes, it's only true that we think more population will lead to more harm - and it does not, or does not lead to some specific harm referenced, or some other set of circumstances is required for that specific harm to materialize even in the face of more population. That our moral conviction is based on a fact of our belief, but not a fact of more population.

Sometimes, it's true that we just don't like the idea of more people.

[bennyboy]

The mountain is harmed exactly as the mountain is destroyed even if it is not bad - this is the same argument all over again.  To be fair, it's always bad if you ask me.  

Sometimes, it's true that we just don't like the idea of more people.

I'll have to say, then, that I'm not willing to use the term as you use it. To me, harm most certainly implies a negative connotation.

I've never heard of people say a log is harmed by burning, unless perhaps they are the proud possessors of some particularly unique and special log that they cherish.

But state is changing constantly-- new mountains growing, land getting subducted and recycled, crystals of ice forming and then melting. I cannot say that a snowflake melting is harmful to anything or anyone, including the water in that structure.

[The Grand Nudger]

Being harmed, and being harmful to x, are not the same thing - as the qualifier would indicate, and sometimes harming one thing is beneficial to another. I'm not too worried about whether you're willing to do this or that - no more so here than in context of moral motivation. The question is whether or not there's anything specifically or egregiously inaccurate in realist statements. Moral statements, sure..since we've been droning on forever - but others as well.,=..since there's no clear difference between a realist moral statement, and any other realist contention. How do we or how can we prove what we know, not, do we care about what we might be able to prove, or, are we willing to accept that a thing can be known.

That out of the way. Who said it didn't have a negative connotation in this usage? That's what you mentioned being motivated to avoid for reasons of what would probably be shame or discomfort. We do alot of negative things, don't you think? In this way, or in my way..if you prefer...the list is simply longer than yours because I have no motivation reject that content. I'm motivated to accurately communicate it, instead. If it helps, not every item of moral import carries moral desert in a full moral consideration. Just as factual circumstances can be complicated, so too can moral circumstances in a factual system. So, you may in fact be responsible for all of that harm you suspect you may be, and are motivated by that realization to avoid as a way of protecting your self image (or sanity, lol)...but that still might not lead, factually, to calling you a monster. Perhaps you only think that it would because your moral understanding from this pov is unpracticed and unrepresentatively simplistic? Or because you, as an individual, have a particularly strong response to doing harm or worrying that you do harm. You're a vegetarian, yes? Seems like you might be more finely attuned to the bad you seek to avoid than..say..me. I'll kill an animal for fun, not just food.

We reach the point where the question is more like, how can we deal with what we may know? How do we sleep at night if we're doing so much hinky shit? Pretty well, actually. Almost like we were made for it, as apex predators on a world full of obligate predation, lol. Can you think of ways that a snowflake melting, even if it's sensible to say that this destroys the snowflake, that heat harms a snowflake, might carry no moral desert? Perhaps because no moral agent is involved? This obviously isn't the case with agw, where much snow (and alot else) is put in danger, destroyed, harmed, etc. You seem to think the presence of a specific subject (or type of subject) is important to moral consideration in some way - so, that tracks, right? Here's a list of shit you could be held morally accountable for - that could be praiseworthy or condemnation worthy. Burning logs is definitely in there because the act can or does contain the attributes or consequences of the content referred to as moral - you have an act of moral import, and a moral agent. Quick questions..did you do it in a fireplace to keep your family warm - or did you set a wildfire? Are you 30, or 3? Was there something else you could have done to satisfy that goal without incurring those attributes or consequences? Different answers to this question change how we view the situation, and sensibly so, as there are objective differences between fireplaces and wildfires, between three year olds and adults.

[bennyboy]

Any fact of the real world could be considered in a subjective moral system, or in the feelings that contribute to it.

Maybe someone LOVES logs-- like, they will actually cry every time they see a log burning. If you could get 2 of those nutjobs in a room together, a new moral code would be established pretty quickly.

The same goes for animals. I know of many vegetarians who would literally cry at the idea of a cow being killed. And there are plenty who would see them as no less silly than those who would weep over logs.

Trying to loop back to the OP, now-- do moral worlds even exist? Can you "know" that X is right or wrong (call this category-A), or is that just short form for "I know that the people around me would approve or disapprove of X?" (category B)

I think it's a fairly serious problem in society that people confuse the latter with the former. When challenged, they will spin some made-up rationale to show that a category-B belief is really category-A.

They don't "know that my family and friends disapprove of homosexuality." They "know" that homosexuality is wrong, and that anyone who does wrong should be punished, perhaps by death. But they don't know this due to any objective fact-- they "know" it through social osmosis.

This is why I challenge "scientific" positions-- it's important never to stop questioning them, such that "science," the best system of inquiry into reality, not be replaced with "Science" as a dogma, and that people "know" things that are in fact absorbed by social osmosis. How many people say they "believe in" science who know absolutely nothing about it but do not KNOW that they are conflating category-B knowledge with category-A? I'd venture-- almost all of them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Any fact of the real world could be considered in a subjective moral system, or in the feelings that contribute to it.

We can consider something subjective all we like, but..if it's a fact of an object, it isn't.  We're just misusing a word.  That's a really good example of a subjectivist claim, actually.  Because we personally misuse a word, we are convinced of x.  

Maybe someone LOVES logs-- like, they will actually cry every time they see a log burning.  If you could get 2 of those nutjobs in a room together, a new moral code would be established pretty quickly.

The same goes for animals.  I know of many vegetarians who would literally cry at the idea of a cow being killed.  And there are plenty who would see them as no less silly than those who would weep over logs.

These are both emotivist, not subjectivist, at least as described.  

Trying to loop back to the OP, now-- do moral worlds even exist?  Can you "know" that X is right or wrong (call this category-A), or is that just short form for "I know that the people around me would approve or disapprove of X?" (category B)

I think it's a fairly serious problem in society that people confuse the latter with the former.  When challenged, they will spin some made-up rationale to show that a category-B belief is really category-A.

They don't "know that my family and friends disapprove of homosexuality."  They "know" that homosexuality is wrong, and that anyone who does wrong should be punished, perhaps by death.  But they don't know this due to any objective fact-- they "know" it through social osmosis.

I agree, confusing relativist morality (and the others) with objective morality is a mistake that leads to other mistakes.  In fact, I think it's the mistake that has lead to all of our mistakes of moral desert*.  When we consider women burnt as witches under a purportedly realist justification - we can see how those women died for reasons relating to the fact that some person believed they were a witch, or some authority declared they were a witch, or that some person was jealous, or angry, or upset at them.  They were not burnt for actually -being-witches.  For the purported fact.  We'll return to this again below.

This is why I challenge "scientific" positions-- it's important never to stop questioning them, such that "science," the best system of inquiry into reality, not be replaced with "Science" as a dogma, and that people "know" things that are in fact absorbed by social osmosis.  How many people say they "believe in" science who know absolutely nothing about it but do not KNOW that they are conflating category-B knowledge with category-A?  I'd venture-- almost all of them.

Continually questioning everything probably isn't the worst idea anyone has ever had - however....it doesn't make any sense to continually question relativist, subjectivist, or emotivist claims, genuinely expressed, in and of themselves.  

Only realist truth claims (again, genuinely expressed) have a variable relationship with truth or purport to report accurate things about objects (as opposed to subjects, societies, or the presence of emotions), such that a continual investigation might show the statement to be true or false with respect to the accuracy of the facts it purports to report.  As we've just agreed, it's a mistake to confuse relativism (or subjectivism, or emotivism) with realism, a mistake that leads to other mistakes.  That relationship flows both ways.  

So, lets say a person grabs a handheld radar and measures the speed of a baseball in flight.  Tell me, in what way do you think this purported fact is, in fact, not a fact of the baseball - but a fact of a subject's opinions about baseballs, a fact of a given society's proclamations about baseballs, or the presence of an emotion triggered by baseballs- as in the case for burning witches?

(* which is why i prefer a minimal moral reality, with an over-praising and under-punishing system of desert - explicitly crafted to evade objections to fact, objections to motivation, and objections to negative consequence. "But what if the purported fact is inaccurate?" - then the statement is discarded. "How can we compel people to do right if and when their interests are not aligned to it in and of themselves?" - by heavily incentivizing them. "But what if bad things would happen to people under a factual moral statement?" - we should take extreme care to see that they don't)

[bennyboy]

Any fact of the real world could be considered in a subjective moral system, or in the feelings that contribute to it.

We can consider something subjective all we like, but..if it's a fact of an object, it isn't.  We're just misusing a word.  That's a really good example of a subjectivist claim, actually.  Because we personally misuse a word, we are convinced of x.  

Even feelings themselves might be called objective to a subjective thinker, because they are not really something one controls, and are based on evolutionary motivations that precede humanity-- they are inputs into the moral calculus. You might even argue that all ideas, since they bubble up from parts of the brain to which we don't have direct access, are objective.

And even this is dangerous. People take the targets of feelings as axiomatic. OF COURSE babies are precious little sacraments, that must be protected with our lives. OF COURSE, liberty is a God-given human right (whether you believe in a God or not). OF COURSE, strange old ladies with too many cats who ramble incoherently are agents of Satan and must be burned at the stake.

But today, there are also new "of courses" with which I do not agree.

When I was of an age and appearance (very thin, long hair, pretty face), I met all types of unusual characters from many walks of life-- and the times that they attempted to lure me, drug me, bribe me or otherwise coerce me into all manner of unsavory (and potentially dangerous) activities left quite an impression on me. I learned that if someone seems a little off, they are very likely a LOT off, potentially in ways you don't want to get involved with up close. But if I were to use that real-world knowledge to make decisions about, say, who I would or wouldn't let babysit my grandchildren (not yet, but soon I suppose), then I could be in for a world of hurt-- because people KNOW for sure that every shape, size, color and mode of expression is morally equivalent and that prejudice is the worst possible crime a person can commit.

Here's one to ponder, though-- feelings of distrust exist due to their evolutionary value. Being an open-hearted unconditional lover of all mankind is fine and well, but it doesn't help your genetic fitness when your offspring is rotting face-down in a secluded swamp with a load of jizz up its ass.

/end disconnected random rant

[The Grand Nudger]

We can consider something subjective all we like, but..if it's a fact of an object, it isn't.  We're just misusing a word.  That's a really good example of a subjectivist claim, actually.  Because we personally misuse a word, we are convinced of x.  

Even feelings themselves might be called objective to a subjective thinker, because they are not really something one controls, and are based on evolutionary motivations that precede humanity-- they are inputs into the moral calculus.  You might even argue that all ideas, since they bubble up from parts of the brain to which we don't have direct access, are objective.

As before, a person can misuse a word.  You can make these arguments, but you shouldn't - if the goal is validity or accuracy. 

And even this is dangerous.  People take the targets of feelings as axiomatic.  OF COURSE babies are precious little sacraments, that must be protected with our lives.  OF COURSE, liberty is a God-given human right (whether you believe in a God or not).  OF COURSE, strange old ladies with too many cats who ramble incoherently are agents of Satan and must be burned at the stake.

People do lots of things.  Realist, subjectivist, relativist, and emotivist theories all appear to be descriptively true.  

But let me define "subjective" morality as I see it-- it is a moral system which is predicated mainly on one's feelings about the world, with rational justifications added later when necessary.

You may never grasp the distinction between subjectivism and emotivism..so sure, why not.  

That it depends on objective facts doesn't matter, unless the facts allow one to transcend emotions and arrive at a moral conclusion via logic.

That's the only thing that matters to objectivism.  Accurate descriptions of purported facts are not made less accurate because you do or don't feel some way about them. Have you ever considered that your commitment to the misuse of terms and replacement of terms with empty phrases is the only thing that your conviction here depends on?  That it is a textbook subjectivist claim masquerading as a realist claim? Is any of this true or false because it is an accurate representation of the facts it purports to report, or is it only true..that it's like, your opinion man..that you feel super duper emotively committed to?

You can probably see how the buck stops somewhere, unless you think that everything you've said here..right or wrong, has no relationship to the facts of the matters they purportedly address. Wherever that buck stops, is exactly where a moral conclusion can be arrived at, via logic, exactly as demanded. I'm not convinced that any such moral claim would mean much to you, or that you would feel a particular way about it - but it would be true just as any other claim is contended to be so. Simple function of the transitive law. If a is equal to b, and b is equal to c, then a is equal to c.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's one to ponder, though-- feelings of distrust exist due to their evolutionary value.  Being an open-hearted unconditional lover of all mankind is fine and well, but it doesn't help your genetic fitness when your offspring is rotting face-down in a secluded swamp with a load of jizz up its ass.

/end disconnected random rant

One of the many...many reasons neither I nor objectivism consider a thing moral or immoral based on it's utility to me or whether I feel a certain way as a product of my biological origin.  I understand that bad things can be as useful as..and sometimes even more useful than, good things.  That I can feel great about doing a bad thing, or fail to feel poorly about doing a bad thing, or feel downright shitty doing a good thing.  Sometimes, good things do nothing to enhance my genetic fitness, and there's at least some category of good that I was repeatedly willing to die in pursuit of before I'd reproduced, for and against unrelated populations.

Being an open hearted lover of all mankind never entered into it, though I've met people who do seem that way, and I do like to be around them, lol.