tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Mathematics?
Speaking of "incorrect definitions", there is a difference between the absolutes of mathematics and the philosophy of morality and ethics.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Objective morality
- Thread starter KlLLUMINATI
- Start date
Speaking of "incorrect definitions", there is a difference between the absolutes of mathematics and the philosophy of morality and ethics.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
But where did you get your starting set from?
Why do I care what other people think?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I wonder, which theory of ethical philosophy would one apply mathematical proofs to?
Divine Command?
Social Contract?
Epicurean?
Utilitarianism?
Pragmaticism?
Ethical egoism?
Ascriptivism?
Objectivism?
Divine Command?
Social Contract?
Epicurean?
Utilitarianism?
Pragmaticism?
Ethical egoism?
Ascriptivism?
Objectivism?
The only problem I see with this is that goals are not necessarily nor should they be consistent. They are not consistent with individuals nor circumstances.
Making people happy is an arbitrary goal. So this seems inconsistent with your first statement.
Absolute in the sense that there is one correct path to achieve the desired goal?
There seems to me many ways to try and achieve a desired goal. Often we don't even know all of the consequences of trying one path/method over another. As we learn more we have to adjust our methods on the fly sometimes.
This may work where the outcome has been consistently know to produce the desired result. However someone may come up with an untried idea that produces better results. So I don't think there is any moral absolutes in the sense of the goal. There is what works well enough to produce the desired results which can always be improved upon.
Yet here you are developing rules for a objective morality...
You have rules/guidelines to meet in determining this objective morality. How is this any different?
So you have inconsistent guidelines? How is this objective?
A pig has no interest in what π is. Math is a language man has developed to describe the universe he observes. A different intelligence may perceive a different universe. Our observation is based on how we perceive the universe. You can't assume an alien species would perceive the universe the say way. π may have no value, no meaning to them because they sense the universe in a different way then we do. Your assuming your perception of the universe is universal. There is no guarantee that it is.
All the more reason to see morals as non-objective IMO.
There are different types of logic. They, as far as I know have a set of rules associated with their use. You would or would not be obligated to use these rules in determining the right and wrong course of action?
Why do I care what other people think?
You asked what the good is. Closed minded people's opinions hold no meaning to me, but you're free to stay that way
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
But for your morality to be objective, it can't depend on me being human. It can't depend on my mirror neurons. It can't depend on me sharing any of your assumptions other than physics itself.You asked what the good is. Closed minded people's opinions hold no meaning to me, but you're free to stay that way
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
What -functional- goal? A functional goal of whom? How has the goal been defined or described? The reason for which it has been defined or described? Its benchmarks or measurement mechanisms?
That a world view is less probable does not make them illegitimate - the argument of logical consistency may hold true, however there is nothing to suggest that probability plays a factor in determining legitimacy. Nor does their original 'source' influence whether or not the content of the ethical framework proposed by a certain belief system is logically coherent - the other beliefs may well be incoherent, but there is nothing to suggest that the ethical systems proposed must also be logically incoherent. You then rule out 'things like' Satanism, Objectivism, social and instinctive moral drives, social contract and game theory without providing a reason.
Your discussion of the interest based system of ethics is interesting and logical, however your argument fails to support your position that it is the only possible objective morality - nor even that it is truly objective (merely rational), particularly in terms of the exchange rates, nor any justification of the distribution of outcomes and so forth.
I mean something which is not its own end, and which yields mechanical function with respect to action.
This rules out circular goals, tautologies, things like: "Morality is to have a moral intent; as long as you intend to be moral, you are moral."
Oh, but it does; that's the tricky part.
Morality is of a quality that it changes relative probability into a binary of moral/amoral based on principles of opportunity cost (see economics).
It is immoral to follow a system that is less probably moral when one has the opportunity to follow a system that is more probably moral.
Imagine you have two boxes in a building which will shortly be exploding.
You can carry only one out to safety.
You know that box A has a 99% chance of being filled with kittens/puppies/babies/(choose your moral prerogative- whatever), and box B has a 0.00001% chance of being filled with said filling.
It becomes clear that, with the impossibility of certainty, even if you might turn out to be wrong, the moral choice (given the knowledge that the box is statistically filled with your moral prerogative to the respective degrees mentioned), is the more probable moral action of the two.
Following a less probable system for morality is less moral than following a more probable one. That makes the only moral system to follow (following the system being a moral choice in itself) the most probable one (unless or until you get more information, changing that probability).
Follow?
This is why rejection of science is evil. Even if 'science' turned out to be wrong, we have a moral obligation to accept it as the most objective and probably true source of information we have until better information is available.
No, it affects the probability.
A source being a true omniscient and omnibenevolent deity would be the most probably moral.
If that deity is false, however, it can only be assumed to be a random or unreliable source- with a probability comparable to chance/guessing.
I'm ruling out systems based on innate selfishness; which being the basis of morality would make the term meaningless. Objectivism and Satanism can also be ruled out on logical grounds, however, due to internal inconsistencies (this just takes longer to demonstrate).
A goal must be internally consistent, or it lacks coherent output.
A goal can be compounded with multiple conflicting factors, if their interests are weighted coherently. Other factors rule these kinds of deontologies out, however.
Umm... I said pretty clearly that such a goal was inaccurate. I was just making an example.
No, the goal is absolute.
Sometimes there are multiple, equally valid means of attaining the same goal (e.g. veer left, vs. veer right to avoid a child in the center of the street).
Usually there are minute variables that will distinguish them, though, and provide a favorable course of action. Being unable to measure all of these variables, though, when there is no clear preference it is morally acceptable to merely act on one of them randomly.
Yes. This is not inconsistent with objective morality. This is the same with Science- we have adjusted and improved our methods over time. It doesn't mean that things like gravity are subjective, however, just because our testing is imperfect or imprecise to some degree.
You're mixing up goal and process. I don't refute that- those are matters of process.
The goal is that which is absolute; the process of reaching that goal is a gradual one, involving some mistakes, and much learning.
Uh, no. That is completely, logically, false. If one is using valid scientific methodology, that controls for perception and bias.
π is inherently meaningful to all beings who have discovered mathematics (using a different word or way to represent it, but the same number); you really need to study mathematics more to understand why that is.
No. Logic is founded on some very basic and inherently true axioms; there are some special applications which are still compatible with logic but have certain operations which are useful for certain things, that's not a "different type" of logic, though.
If you don't understand this, you need to study logic.
Wiki is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
One is obligated to use valid deduction to determine anything that is necessarily true following from something else.
We would also use economics extensively, and probability and statistics to determine the most likely moral course of action (because our information is limited).
Go back a few posts; I went over this (one of my long ones responding to a request to deduce logical absolute morality a couple pages back).
My starting set is all possible systems.
That is false. I explained this a few posts back.
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I'm still not following you. Could you please step through why a goal such as "Turn everything into paperclips" is objectively wrong? (Keeping in mind that objective includes all possible intelligences, not just humans.)
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Yes, I saw your "explanation".
Converting the philosophy of ethics and morals to mathematics arbitrarily relies on your own subjective opinion of how morality should be interpreted.
Your own definition verifies the subjectivity of ethical philosophy.
Not everyone comes to the same moral conclusions in a particular situation. Throughout history and today, differing cultures and individuals embrace differing ethical values depending on societal situations and individual reasoning.
Here's the post where I break it down:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru.../131763-objective-morality-3.html#post2900605
And then one following that, should clarify more.
But for "Turn everything into paperclips":
The goal is arbitrary, thus can only be adopted for innate/personal reasons.
Choosing an arbitrary goal amounts to choosing any goal we like/are indoctrinated with which can be reduced to doing anything we like/whatever we would have tended to do anyway- which makes the concept meaningless.
That is, in so far as an objective moral goal exists (conceptually speaking), it must be distinct from that which it is not- default human behavior (a combination of genetics and chaotic environmental factors); a default which amounts to doing whatever we want to do/whatever we were programmed with.
It is this ontological necessity that eliminates arbitrary goals.
It is non-arbitrary; my process is of logical deduction.
Again, you don't seem to understand what subjectivity is as opposed to objectivity.
Subjectivity/Objectivity have nothing to do with something being Empirical; beyond Empiricism there is Rationalism, for which legitimate practice is founded on deductive logic.
Just because something is non-Empirical, it is not necessarily subjective. I gave i as an example of something which is objective and non-Empirical (With respect to its inability to be detected by sense, yet with objective logical use in mathematics).
Likewise, something having a margin of error due to our limited capacity does not make it subjective- Quantum events themselves have a natural probability distribution which are objective and inherent (can not be overcome by better measurement) due to their wave-like nature.
The margin of error in moral action is likewise due to natural chaos, as well as to our limited information.
Yes, and not everybody comes to the same answer on a math test. Some people are right, and some people are wrong.
People being wrong about something doesn't make it subjective.
Yes, and most of them are incorrect.
Goals often lack a coherent output. That just the way it is going to be when individuals with different interests are involved. If you were the only entity in the universe perhaps you'll find coherency. Otherwise it's just an imagine, impractical pipe dream.
Perhaps a better example then?
What absolute goal then? Does agreement matter? Do we have to agree on this goal or are you assuming a universal goal that would require no agreement between entities?
This all seems very egocentric.
The universe does change. Something make take a very long time so they are consistent enough. But still change occurs. So there's no guarantee we will ever reach the precision necessary for our understanding of the universe to be purely objective. What we accept now as physical laws may turn out to be very crude with regard to what we might know. You're assuming man will be able to set aside his subjectiveness through science? I'm not ready to assume that is going to happen anytime soon.
Sometime the process is the goal. You are defining this goal as absolute but that may only be true for you.
It's convenient to assume my lack of knowledge can dismiss my argument.
You understand we are dealing with concepts here and a circle is a concept. For a species who say used sound-wave to perceive the universe. Had no particular need of use for the concept of a circle. What value would π to them? And, if an unnecessary concept, unlikely to be of any consideration in any of their goals.
Again convenient to assume others are lacking in knowledge. This is a very limited selection. Classical views of logic.
One is not obligated. Maybe if someone agrees with your methods or if you happen to be the only entity involved. I don't mean this is a bad way, simple is not bad, but it seems a simplistic model for objective morality. One that might have merit is a less dynamic reality. However, I don't see it implementable in a practical sense.
If you reject logic, and refuse to follow the rules of logic, then I'm not going to have a conversation with you.
I'm not going to play chess with somebody who refuses to follow the rules of chess, and just moves any which way he or she pleases, either.
Logic is a necessary prerequisite for all coherent thought and reasoned discussion and investigation into reality. I don't humor its rejection, because to do so is to humor the meaningless of all knowledge and does not further the pursuit of knowledge or any form of enlightenment- it only results in closed mindedness.
If anybody else (excepting those who know who they are), who does respect logical discourse, wants to repose any of the questions or comments made in the prior post, I'm happy to respond to them
(or any other questions or arguments related to the topic)I just won't play debate with somebody who doesn't respect the rules.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
"One then dismisses innate goals, because acceptance of those as morality would make the term meaningless (as mentioned before)."
Only if everyone's innate goals were the same. That's not true. It's also too dismissive; innate goals are still goals, and they might be the most moral ones. (As opposed to non-innate goals, which might be less moral.)
They essentially are; they're founded on emotion and cognitive processes- like clockwork.
"I'm hungry. OK, I'll eat something/somebody."
"Ouch, that hurts. OK, I won't do that."
We are learning machines, and those goals are a product of our environment; acceptance of such goals as the quintessence of morality would invalidate the usefulness of the term entirely by making every action moral (the logical process of accepting that goal being equally applicable to the rest).
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
You're pre-emptively assuming that everyone's conclusions from that learning are equally valid. That's not a sound assumption.
If you reject logic, and refuse to follow the rules of logic, then I'm not going to have a conversation with you.
I'm not going to play chess with somebody who refuses to follow the rules of chess, and just moves any which way he or she pleases, either.
Logic is a necessary prerequisite for all coherent thought and reasoned discussion and investigation into reality. I don't humor its rejection, because to do so is to humor the meaningless of all knowledge and does not further the pursuit of knowledge or any form of enlightenment- it only results in closed mindedness.
If anybody else (excepting those who know who they are), who does respect logical discourse, wants to repose any of the questions or comments made in the prior post, I'm happy to respond to them
I just won't play debate with somebody who doesn't respect the rules.
Sorry you are creating a strawman for me. I never said anything like that.
You are not addressing the criticisms.
I was going to say you have something to start with but it needs further development. However you're going to have to stop dismissing criticisms just because they don't fit in your paradigm of understanding.
I think I've given your ideas a fair hearing. I'm sorry you've chosen not to do the same.
Anyway good luck with your concept. I hope you manage to get somewhere with it.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Quite honestly, that is the most ridiculous enlargement I have heard in quite a while.
Rationalism itself is subjective as it relies on human reason, rather than empiricism.
In other words, one cannot use rationalism to come to an absolute truth. However, one can use rationalism (reason) to come to the best answer for a situation.
In mathematics, it can be empirically shown that 1+1=2.
In the philosophy of ethics and morals, it cannot be shown empirically that theft is immoral. There are too many variables. Therefore, we must use reason to determine if a particular occurrence of theft is within or without certain moral boundaries that are usually agreed upon by society.
Everything in morality and ethics is subjective to situations and circumstance.
It is, as there is nothing left to differentiate them in that context.
Do you, or do you not accept the validity of logic?
If you do, then I am happy to address your concerns. If not, then there is no point in doing so (unless you will at least agree to accept logic for the sake of conversation).
"logic is false" is not a coherent idea; it is the negation of every possible coherent idea.
Logic is not subjective. This is your misunderstanding of rationalism. Only a strict Empiricist would say something like that.
That is absolutely false. One can only use rationalism to come to absolute truth- empiricism only yields variable probability (never certainty).
Strict empiricism itself is highly illogical.
No, it can not. 1 + 1 = 2 is proven with certainty using logic. You can't prove it with certainty empirically.