Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[Thumpalumpacus]

*sigh*

[The Grand Nudger]

Imagine how ethicists must feel, lol. They get up there and educate and lecture and study and survey and they just don't know that everything they have to say about the subject is wrong, and obviously wrong, because it's all subjective.

Moral objectivism is a non novel theory. It's a cogent theory. It is the majority position of academic philosophy. Every one of the others I've presented is also, I think, well argued by professionals, even if they aren't as well represented or popular at the moment. I haven't seen anyone arguing that moral relativism can't be true because it's all subjective. That error theory can't be true because it's all subjective. Food for thought.

[Sheldon]

I would agree, but none of the examples appear to do this? The conclusion that X is moral / immoral remained subjective, even when it was preceded with a fact that Y led to X. 

Remained subjective in some way not described by metaethical subjectivism, and subjective in some way that other mechanically equivalent assertions are not, or remained subjective in some way that any assertion of any type or kind or quality about anything whatsoever..is subjective?  

Remained subjective in the sense that the conclusion was true only if one accepted another subjective claim. For example, if one (subjectively) accepts that X is immoral, and Y causes X, then it would probably  be true that Y is immoral. 

Well I find the "idea that moral claims are true if they accurately describe objective features of the world" dubious. Since we saw you offer examples that contained true statements, or partially true, and yet the moral conclusions were still subjective, or required further subjective assertions. 

That is, very quickly and dirtily speaking, the way other truth assertions which you consider to be objective are determined to be so.  By accurately reporting whatever fact they purport to report.  

Punching someone causes pain, if causing pain is immoral, then punching someone must be immoral. See how the statement is true, but still ultimately based on a subjective opinion? The statement doesn't objectively demonstrate that causing pain is immoral. all the examples were like that. 

Though they will ultimately rest on a subjective moral assertion. For example we can say it is true that murder causes harm, if we then accept the subjective assertion that causing harm is immoral, then the assertion that murder is immoral would be objectively true. The problem is that the first subjective claim is also relative, what if the harm were considered necessary? Then the statement murder is immoral is not objectively true, no? 

An emotivist morality rests on emotivist assertions.  Relativist moralities rest on relativist assertions.  Objectivist moralities rest on objectivist assertions.  Necessary harms are still harms.  Necessary evils are still evil. It's right there on the tin.  We have or imagine all sorts of reasons to do good and bad things....but the difference between these isms and ists is the truth making property in a given system or assertion.  

We seem to be back at the start with me asking for a moral assertion that does not ultimately rest on subjective opinion. FWIW my moral worldview involves my emotions, but is not based solely on them, as I use my reason to weight consequences, but nor do I always use consequentialism, I also accept that moral relativism has some truth in it. 

It seems hard to place myself in a particular box, as if all those ideas have some merit, but none are entirely compelling. 

Anyway, thanks for not talking down to me, or being condescending.

[Sheldon]

Imagine how ethicists must feel, lol.  They get up there and educate and lecture and study and survey and they just don't know that everything they have to say about the subject is wrong, and obviously wrong, because it's all subjective.

Is wrong the right word? If I claim to prefer red to any other colour, that is not wrong is it? It's objectively true, but it tells us nothing about red or any other colour beyond my subjective preference. I suppose we examine moral ideas because it matters to us, and therefore we think it worthwhile. It just may make life more tolerable, though of course it is not an objective truth that life should be more tolerable. 

Moral objectivism is a non novel theory. 

though the competing moral theories have to deal with reality as well, they can't be entirely theoretical or else they'd be useless? Or I have missed the point? I must admit I am no closer to accepting that morality is objectively true, only that if we make a subjective claim about something, we are then able to make objectively true claims about how best to achieve it. 

We think X is wrong.  

Y causes X.

It follows then that if x is wrong, then y is also wrong. 

The first assertion remains subjective. The second is an objective claim about reality. The conclusion is true only if we accept the initial subjective claim. 

So I think the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles is true, unless someone can offer an example? As even though we do seem to have evolved such that certain behaviours are anathema to most of us, this doesn't make them objectively immoral, surely those are just instincts that natural selection has kept because it aided societal cohesion enough to provide a survival advantage.

[Ferrocyanide]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was talking about the dictionary definition. It doesn't have circular reasoning or begging, which is good. The problem is that it is vague.

It seems clear enough, morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

I think the definition of the word morality makes it unclear 

Makes what unclear?

I don’t think it is clear enough because the definition is founded on the words “right” and “wrong” and those words aren’t clear.
So, go ahead and define right and wrong.

Can you demonstrate objectively that causing pain is immoral? Otherwise as I said in that quote, you are ultimately resting your moral assertion on a subjective claim.

We can do it via steps.
Do you think that humans have pain sensors?

    The rape part was objectively immoral.

I disagree, but if you think you can demonstrate this without resorting to a subjective moral claim please do.

Why do yo disagree? Show me your logical steps as to how you reached the conclusion that thinking rape is wrong is subjective?

    It is similar to your rape case. A damage is occurring to person X.

Yes but the claim that causing damage to someone or something is immoral, is a subjective claim, it is not objectively true. just try asking why something is immoral, and see if it does not ultimately rest on a subjective claim.

Like I said previously, the definition of the word morality is unclear.
Just saying so and such is moral and this other thing is immoral is insufficient.
Just saying this is right and this is wrong is insufficient.
You need to support such claims by how you cam up with that conclusion.

Based on what I have observed, quite often, humans have a lot of similarity. They are machines. Their bodies essentially functions the same way.
Based on what I have observed, when humans talk about morality, quite often, they are talking about their pain sensors, their emotions that lead them to desire survival, psychological pain.
There is another portion of humans, the theists (christians) that claim that morality comes from god and whatever he says is immoral, is immoral. These guys are talking something utterly different. They have a definition of morality that is different than mine.

Yes but the claim that causing damage to someone or something is immoral, is a subjective claim

How so? If I define immoral as the word damage.
Rape causes damage therefore rape is immoral.
You have already agreed that rape causes damage.
(In this case, we are talking about inflicting damage to an emotional machine.)

[Ferrocyanide]

It occurs to me that if we do lack an objective standard, that doesn't prevent us from determining that a given action is morally worse or better than another. I don't need an objective standard of length to tell one piece of rope is longer than another. Torturing a healthy human baby to death is worse than cooing at it, and I'm prepared to die on that hill.

This is a place where we need to be open. You need to tell us why you believe what you believe.
What did you do to determine that one rope is longer than another?
You need to tell is the logical steps that leads you to the conclusion.

This isn't the place to claim "because god said so" or "because I said so".

[Mister Agenda]

It occurs to me that if we do lack an objective standard, that doesn't prevent us from determining that a given action is morally worse or better than another. I don't need an objective standard of length to tell one piece of rope is longer than another. Torturing a healthy human baby to death is worse than cooing at it, and I'm prepared to die on that hill.

This is a place where we need to be open. You need to tell us why you believe what you believe.
What did you do to determine that one rope is longer than another?
You need to tell is the logical steps that leads you to the conclusion.

This isn't the place to claim "because god said so" or "because I said so".

Because I compared them to see which was longer. Brilliant lecture.

[The Grand Nudger]

Remained subjective in the sense that the conclusion was true only if one accepted another subjective claim. For example, if one (subjectively) accepts that X is immoral, and Y causes X, then it would probably  be true that Y is immoral. 

Lets put this in a utilitarian context, utilitarianism being a popular objectivist theory.  

When we say that crack addiction is bad for us we're not suggesting that a person has to accept this claim is true, or any underlying subjectivist claim as true, in order for the claim to be true.   We're saying there's something about crack which is bad for us regardless of a subjects personal opinion or a groups predispositions.  If a crack addict says "that's just your opinion, I think it's good for me" and his crackhead friends go "yeah, it's good for us!" this is not taken to be a cogent argument against the doctors assertion or advice, or proof that the statement is coming from a fundamentally subjective basis.

Punching someone causes pain, if causing pain is immoral, then punching someone must be immoral. See how the statement is true, but still ultimately based on a subjective opinion? The statement doesn't objectively demonstrate that causing pain is immoral. all the examples were like that. 

Similar to the above - and it's worth noting that not all true claims of pain or harm would qualify as objectivist pains or harms.  We could go back and forth with examples of this one until the end of days but at the bottom of it all there's an accurate answer, which may be truly unsatisfying.  Harm basis spring out at us from every metaethical angle.   Ethicists, psychologists, sociologists, cultural anthropologists,  neurologists and the reporting subjects themselves say that when people talk about morality they are talking about or considering harm - this conclusion is based upon a mountain of evidence.

We seem to be back at the start with me asking for a moral assertion that does not ultimately rest on subjective opinion. FWIW my moral worldview involves my emotions, but is not based solely on them, as I use my reason to weight consequences, but nor do I always use consequentialism, I also accept that moral relativism has some truth in it. 

It seems hard to place myself in a particular box, as if all those ideas have some merit, but none are entirely compelling. 

Anyway, thanks for not talking down to me, or being condescending.

You don't believe this claim as you've reported it.  It's not even subjectively true to you.  You understand moral emotivism and moral relativity and think they too exist and have some truth.  That they too underlie some moral claims.  That a person can accept those underlying emotivist and relativist claims and then objectivize after or around the/that fact.  Analytic philosophy includes E opinions, objectivist opinions, the only ones which you claim cannot or do not exist thusfar.  

Let A be the set of subjectivist assertions or basis.  Let X be the set of all other assertions or basis - and lets leave out objectivism-  it's not in the set of X because it's a non entity.  You cannot logically contend that all moral assertions or basis are A if you also contend that even some moral assertions or basis are X.  


Now, in practice, in reality - in descriptive ethics...we observe that moral systems are more often than not hybrid systems.  Not solely one or the other ism or ist.  An objectivist can personally observe that even though they are an objectivist, and believe that only objectivist assertions are valid moral assertions, and only those objectivist moral assertions which succeed at reporting the fact they purport to report are true moral assertions...they have and find compelling all sorts of other moral beliefs and basis, emotional responses, cultural indoctrination, etc.  Further....that we're specifically and generally incompetent.  That we're intentionally and accidentally compromised agents.  We might come that way factory standard, and the situation can be made worse in any number of ways.

I want to bowtie all of these things together by bringing your attention to the vmPFC.  

---

The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) is a part of the prefrontal cortex in the mammalian brain. The ventral medial prefrontal is located in the frontal lobe at the bottom of the cerebral hemispheres and is implicated in the processing of risk and fear, as it is critical in the regulation of amygdala activity in humans.[2] It also plays a role in the inhibition of emotional responses, and in the process of decision-making and self-control. It is also involved in the cognitive evaluation of .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventromedial_prefrontal_cortex

---

The whole thing is fascinating.  What's interesting to harm based objectivism and our convo in specific here is that the part of our brain that lights up when we moralize is associated with regulation and inhibition of the competing metaethical basis in analytic philosophy.  In employing skepticism.  In a cognitive process.  That damage to the area correlates with alterations in harm evaluation.  So, If I'm asked why I think harm is a valid metric in moral consideration, that it belongs in conversations about morality, that we could not fully describe morality without it's reference...I could point to it's manifestly apparent presence in our artifacts and anecdotal reports, I could invite the other person to consider the many ways in which they make such assertions..but I could also point to the the physical structure and function of the brain.   

So, even if we contend that objectivism is metaethically false, harm is still an issue we're talking about or considering..when we discuss or consider morality, right?  I didn't choose to include it.  It's not arbitrarily placed.  It's not unevidenced, and the sorts of evidence available for the assertion or basis not only satisfy our demands of objectivity in most other terms or senses...but can be found in what you or I might consider to be the very pinnacle of human objectivity in practice. 

-but maybe we're wrong about that too.  In content, or in principle.

[Sheldon]

It seems clear enough, morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."
Makes what unclear?

I don’t think it is clear enough because the definition is founded on the words “right” and “wrong” and those words aren’t clear.
So, go ahead and define right and wrong.

You can get the dictionary definition yourself in seconds online? just Google the word and write defintion after it. 

Sheldon: Can you demonstrate objectively that causing pain is immoral? Otherwise as I said in that quote, you are ultimately resting your moral assertion on a subjective claim.

We can do it via steps.
Do you think that humans have pain sensors?

I see no steps, and no attempt to objectively demonstrate that causing pain is immoral, I asked a question based on your claim, and you have responded with a question, one that appears to have no bearing?

The rape part was objectively immoral.

Sheldon: I disagree, but if you think you can demonstrate this without resorting to a subjective moral claim please do.

Why do yo disagree? Show me your logical steps as to how you reached the conclusion that thinking rape is wrong is subjective?

The original claim was yours, I've underlined it above, and I then asked if you could support it with anything beyond the bare subjective claim, you have responding by asking me to disprove it? There seems to be a pattern emerging. FYI I believe your claim was subjective, as all you provided was the bare claim. 

Like I said previously, the definition of the word morality is unclear.

Yet you are making claim after claim using it? 

Just saying so and such is moral and this other thing is immoral is insufficient.
Just saying this is right and this is wrong is insufficient.
You need to support such claims by how you cam up with that conclusion.

I already did multiple times, that I think all moral claims ultimately rest on subjective opinion. Though it is odd you insist I owe more, when you are the one making claims that actions are objectively immoral, when you keep insisting you are not clear what the word means, and have offered no objective evidence at all? 

Sheldon: Yes but the claim that causing damage to someone or something is immoral, is a subjective claim

How so? 

The subjective opinion was all you offered?

If I define immoral as the word damage.

Then it becomes meaningless, one might as well insist the moon is an orange, as that is how they've decided to arbitrarily define it, are you being entirely serious?

Rape causes damage therefore rape is immoral.

Only if one accepts that causing damaging is immoral, but then that is also subjective, thus far. 

You have already agreed that rape causes damage.

I agree that chocolate can damage your teeth, this doesn't make eating it immoral.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is wrong the right word? If I claim to prefer red to any other colour, that is not wrong is it? It's objectively true, but it tells us nothing about red or any other colour beyond my subjective preference. I suppose we examine moral ideas because it matters to us, and therefore we think it worthwhile. It just may make life more tolerable, though of course it is not an objective truth that life should be more tolerable. 

Wrong would be the right word, yeah...but not for you claim to prefer red to any color...and we're right there with respect to why we might want to employ these terms in a more careful or systematic way.  Subjectivist, relativist, and objectivist statements are all statements that are or can be true or false.  Right or wrong.  Practically speaking, you're not likely to get your favorite x false, or wrong (though it is possible!).  A similar thing with relativist statements - but these are easier to get wrong than subjectivist statements in their classic example.  A child might misreport the moral assertions of their community because they are not yet fully aware of them all.  Because, for example, societies employ different moral systems or postulates or metrics as we age.  Or, in a religious example..because some moral assertion is a mystery of the faith only known to the most highly placed.  Everyone else may know that x is so and so, but only a few know the why x is so and so.  

I'm right there with you on it not being an objective truth that life should be more tolerable.  I'll raise you one.  As an objectivist, I think it's objectively true that doing the right thing can make your life objectively worse.  Try stopping a crooked cop from murdering some hapless teenager and see what happens to you.  Fuck, try holding them accountable.  I hope you've got alot of moving violation money laying around.

though the competing moral theories have to deal with reality as well, they can't be entirely theoretical or else they'd be useless? Or I have missed the point? I must admit I am no closer to accepting that morality is objectively true, only that if we make a subjective claim about something, we are then able to make objectively true claims about how best to achieve it. 

We think X is wrong.  

Y causes X.

It follows then that if x is wrong, then y is also wrong. 

The first assertion remains subjective. The second is an objective claim about reality. The conclusion is true only if we accept the initial subjective claim. 

So I think the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles is true, unless someone can offer an example? As even though we do seem to have evolved such that certain behaviours are anathema to most of us, this doesn't make them objectively immoral, surely those are just instincts that natural selection has kept because it aided societal cohesion enough to provide a survival advantage.

I'm not trying to get you to decide that metaethical objectivity is right.  I hope to help you better understand what metaethical objectivists are talking about.  How differences in the way we employ language as laymen and how ethicists employ it as professionals produce different conclusions in the gp and academia.  How there are wonderful and compelling arguments against metaethical objectivity - but repeating "it's all subjective" isn't one of them.  More than anything, and this is lost in pages and pages....I'm exploring the swampy end of why you never have to accept a lunatics framing or premise said lunatic being wrong-in-fact on the idea that metaethical subjectivity is true.


-

The Grand Nudger Wrote:[url=https://atheistforums.org/post-2220240.html#pid2220240][/url]

This seems an absurd position to me, it was of course the argument Shapiro tried to peddle with NdGT, and he gave it the contempt it deserved. Just because one sets a bar for credulity that requires beliefs be supported by sufficient objective evidence, does not mean one can't have a favourite colour based on an entirely subjective view, and the same for moral judgements. I can abhor actions like rape and murder that cause harm to others unnecessarily, but this does not mean I delude myself that it is objectively true that harming others is wrong. 

Just another disingenuous objection used as cover by a religious nut.  It follows pretty cleanly from the notions that there is objective evidence for the existence of trans people and objective evidence that harming people is wrong...that harming trans people would be wrong.  They don't give a shit about that, though.  Their god has an opinion.  Their culture has a position.

The bar for credulity in objectivist ethics does require sufficient objective evidence (rightly or wrongly..in a metaethical sense..whether we possess it or not..in a practical sense).  Shapiro and all his ilk are on the wrong side of science and the wrong side of objectivist ethics on this one.  If they're on the wrong side of subjectivist ethics that's cool....but since benny and co are insisting on science and objectivism, we can give them both barrels - even if we do not believe in objectivist metaethics.  All they really want, in fact, is for you to flee the "scientific" and "objective" fields so that they can claim possession of them, and say that their bigoted shit is scientifically and objectively true....as a pretext to alter our laws to their satisfaction.

Consider our discussion not as one of me convincing you of something, but in me equipping you with the full range of weapons at your disposal for handling claims and people like these ones.