Objective morality

[jasonwill2]

there is objective morality and it is based on tthhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeee ddddddeeeeeeevvvvvvvvviiiiilll!!!

Hail Satan.

any morality we make should be based on human nature. objective morality is based on vengeance adn the law of the jungle, essentally repaying wrongs either through forgiveness or vengence and dont hurt others but in self defense otherwise and only animals for food or self defense

SO TIRED SO LATE :areyoucra

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The two examples you have given of world views do not suggest a difference in morality - only in rationality. It is true that the outcomes of the decisions achieved by the first may be more likely to result in a situation which is 'positive' (though there is nothing to suggest that kittens living is 'positive' in your example) as opposed to the second view; however while it is true that particular 'positive' outcome is more likely in that scenario, that does not mean that the first view is more 'moral' - it may well however mean that it is more likely to result in a decision making heuristic which is more likely to achieve a 'positive' outcome in this (and similar) scenario.

I agree that knowledge is key in achieving any goal - moral or otherwise. I also agree that scientific knowledge is probably more reliable than most other sources of knowledge. For that reason it is more USEFUL, more likely to result in the desired outcomes or realise the intended goal(s). That does not mean scientific knowledge is more moral - however it is probably a more useful tool (than many other sources of knowledge) by which to inform decision making.

A system of 'objective' morality might be informed by scientific examination - however simply said, because morals themselves are the result of highly subjective processes (in particular arising from our relative perception of events, outcomes and stakeholders) the resulting system is not truly objective. Nor does this mean that such a system would be the ONLY possible system that satisfies those same premises.

 

[vepurusg]

dont hurt others but in self defense otherwise and only animals for food or self defense

Humans are animals. Animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures as diverse as sponges, jellyfish, insects and humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#cite_note-americanheritage_animal-2

Science: Give it a try.

The two examples you have given of world views do not suggest a difference in morality - only in rationality.

They do if the goal is moral, and one follows the valid logic of consequentialism.

though there is nothing to suggest that kittens living is 'positive' in your example

Nor was there supposed to be.

I made it clear in my first iteration of the example that 'Saving Kittens' was a stand-in for what which is moral (simplification for the purpose of discussion).

Since you also used the example, I thought that was understood.

Assuming, in this case, that "saving kittens" is moral, then the examples do suggest a distinct difference in morality.

however while it is true that particular 'positive' outcome is more likely in that scenario, that does not mean that the first view is more 'moral' - it may well however mean that it is more likely to result in a decision making heuristic which is more likely to achieve a 'positive' outcome in this (and similar) scenario.

It is if we assume "saving kittens" is the only relevant moral goal present- which was the assumption I made clear in the first iteration of the example.

That does not mean scientific knowledge is more moral - however it is probably a more useful tool (than many other sources of knowledge) by which to inform decision making.

Actually, it does mean that.

Whether morality is "saving kittens" or "destroying kittens", scientific knowledge is still going to be more reliably useful towards that end- that is, assuming the morality of the goal, choosing scientific knowledge (being more conducive to that goal) is more moral than rejecting it.

A system of 'objective' morality might be informed by scientific examination -

Which means that accepting scientific knowledge over less reliable alternatives is objectively more moral. That is, regardless of the 'Goal', provided as I mentioned before, it has certain intuitive qualities.

It's not that complicated.

Once we accept this, we come to realize that we have derived an objective moral truth. To put it crudely: Accepting Ignorance is bad, Accepting Reliable Knowledge (scientific knowledge) is good.

That is not to say that Ignorance is the *only* thing that is bad, or that Knowledge is the *only* thing that is good. BUT it is one objective moral truth.

From this one truth, we can derive some other qualities through deduction.

however simply said, because morals themselves are the result of highly subjective processes (in particular arising from our relative perception of events, outcomes and stakeholders) the resulting system is not truly objective.

Relative perception is largely remedied by objective scientific methodology. Not perfectly, but largely.

Either way, your conclusion is wrong- that would just mean that nobody practices it perfectly. That doesn't negate the concept of objective morality- or mean that we shouldn't try our best.

Most people can't add two numbers reliably, or do long division, either- that doesn't negate the objectivity of mathematics.

Nor does this mean that such a system would be the ONLY possible system that satisfies those same premises.

We use the first moral truth (regarding science), to practice a process of elimination- Reducing the set of all possible moral systems down to one.

That first moral truth goes a long way- it makes immoral following any 'moral system' which conflicts with legitimate reliable knowledge (science and logic).

It invalidates dogmatic, faith based morals- it invalidates all revelation and spiritual gnosis as sources.

That culls the myriad down to a manageable amount, which can then be examined more carefully.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

They do if the goal is moral, and one follows the valid logic of consequentialism

Right so only if the GOAL is moral... this is not a system of objective morality but rather of objectively determining pathways for goal acquisition. It isnt even ABOUT morals - merely objectives; so you cannot suggest that it is an objective morality. x.x

Nor was there supposed to be.

I made it clear in my first iteration of the example that 'Saving Kittens' was a stand-in for what which is moral (simplification for the purpose of discussion).

Since you also used the example, I thought that was understood.

Assuming, in this case, that "saving kittens" is moral, then the examples do suggest a distinct difference in morality.

I realised that, which is why I merely had that in brackets as an offhand remark - the emphasis instead was on the rest - the discussion of 'positive' outcomes, which you have made not attempt to provide a mechanism by which to identify their 'positive' or negative - which is fundamental for objective 'morality'.

Actually, it does mean that.

Whether morality is "saving kittens" or "destroying kittens", scientific knowledge is still going to be more reliably useful towards that end- that is, assuming the morality of the goal, choosing scientific knowledge (being more conducive to that goal) is more moral than rejecting it.

Useful, reliable and accurate are all very good descriptors of scientific knowledge. Not one of those are a synonym for ethics. Goal acquisition is INDEPENDENT of morality. If my goal is to wipe out all life - and I use the most effective and efficient scientific methods by which to do so, that does not imply that my goal or its outcomes are moral.

Which means that accepting scientific knowledge over less reliable alternatives is objectively more moral. That is, regardless of the 'Goal', provided as I mentioned before, it has certain intuitive qualities.

No it does not. It means that 'accepting scientific knowledge over less reliable alternatives is objectively more' reliable, more reasonable, more rational. But it does not mean more ethical.

It's not that complicated.

Once we accept this, we come to realize that we have derived an objective moral truth. To put it crudely: Accepting Ignorance is bad, Accepting Reliable Knowledge (scientific knowledge) is good.

You are right, it is not that complicated - however you are also wrong, that something is more useful in achieving the outcome you desire does not imply that the outcome you desire is moral.

What does your concept have to suggest about how to determine the objectively 'moral' (which has yet to be defined by the way) objectives individuals should have for their choices? Not the mechanism by which they make their choices but the objectives themselves. You have promoted a system by which to assist in achieving your desired outcomes but it does nothing for determining whether it is moral to torture people to death in order to further medical science for example.

Knowledge by itself is objective; that does not mean it pertains to morality. Scientific knowledge is useful; it may even be useful in achieving moral goals, however once again, that does not mean it is inherently moral.

Any application or amalgamation of knowledge begins to lose its objectivity as it is tailored to be used in a certain way, for example information about IP addresses when combined with search histories when combined with a predetermined list of key words which were identified in order to assist identification of terrorists.

A framework of information to identify an 'objective' morality therefore, will increasingly take on subjectivity or nuances through the formulation of the structure itself; ignoring the possibility of subjective application of such a framework.

 

[jasonwill2]

Humans are animals. Animal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that and so does every sane person; I regularly emphasize it in many of my posts and even did EARLIER IN THIS TOPIC. I assumed that most people would have the ability to realize that I was talking specifically about non-human animals.

Only hurt people in self-defense or vengeance.

Only hurt [non-human] animals in self-defense for food.

I think, my tired typos and bad typing aside, it was clear what I meant. No need to pick at the detail as I thought it would of been understood.

 

[vepurusg]

Only hurt people in self-defense or vengeance.

Only hurt [non-human] animals in self-defense for food.

Your distinction is arbitrary and illogical. Rejecting logic is not morality- it is the opposite of morality.

Right so only if the GOAL is moral...

Yes, that was the assumption!

Goal acquisition is INDEPENDENT of morality.

Not where the goal is a moral goal- in that case, the means of acquisition become relevant to the morality of the actions.

that something is more useful in achieving the outcome you desire does not imply that the outcome you desire is moral.

I did not say that.

That something is more useful in achieving a moral outcome, makes that something more moral in the context of that goal.


Moral goal -> accept Science (moral choice)
Moral goal -> reject Science (immoral choice)

Accepting and rejecting science become moral and immoral respectively when considered in the context of a moral goal.

What does your concept have to suggest about how to determine the objectively 'moral' (which has yet to be defined by the way) objectives individuals should have for their choices?

I have already explained this, and defined it, a few times.

The way I'm using to explain it doesn't seem to be working, so I'll write an imaginary conversation:




"Hai I'm good persin! I haev goal 2 b moral"

OK sir, the best way to achieve that goal is to accept science and logic.

"Yay, 2 do it best, I axept sience and logic"

Good job, assuming you're actually a good person, that choice was a moral choice.

"Yay! Nao wut i do?"

Well, first you'll want to reject dogma, and admit you don't know what kind of action is moral due to revelation.

"Y i do that?"

Because, that would be accepting Unreliable knowledge- which is in conflict with your acceptance of science and logic (since that knowledge will inhibit you from acquiring more reliable knowledge).

"O i c. k thnx. Nao wut i do?"

Now you need to figure out what your moral goal is- you do this by drawing a relevant distinction between what it is, and what it is not in terms of possible actions.

"Hao bout i do wut evr i want 2, and i don't do wut i don't want 2?"

Due to the nature of cognition and decisions, everybody already does "whatever they want", calculated as a result of any number of arbitrary factors (in the context of their urges, emotions, fear, knowledge, ignorance).

If morality is to do whatever one wants, then all actions are naturally moral- doing what you don't want is not a possible action to contrast 'doing what you want' against. This makes no relevant distinction between what is moral and what is not.

You need to draw a relevant distinction between possible actions in order to delineate a moral goal from among them.

"O i c. K hao bout I jus make my goal 2 turn evrthng 2 paperclips?"

Why are you choosing that goal?

"Cuz that wut i want 2 do most."

That's the same goal as before- you're choosing to do whatever you want. Try again.

"Wel, if moralty isnt doing wut i want 2, wut other want can i 2 do?"

What is that which is not yourself?

"Umm... other? U meen, I can do wut other want?"

That would seem to be the only option.

"OK i do wut GOD want."

Presupposing the existence of such a being, or assuming knowledge of what it wants, would be a violation of your acceptance of science and logic.

"Oh... so i need do wut other what is Empirically evidenced 2 exist want?"

It would seem so.

"Hao I do wut rock want?"

Rocks are not intelligent or conscious; they have no wants or desires. So, you only need to worry about things that do have wants.

"Wut abt tree? It want sun an watr."

The tree doesn't want anything, because it's not intelligent- it will die without those things, but it doesn't "want" to live or die; it behaves in accordance with its form, devised by evolutionary processes.

"Oh, so hao bout I jus do wut intelgent thing want?"

That might work. By their nature, intelligent beings usually have wants.

"But hao I do wut all they want? They want 2 miny differnt thing!"

You can't do what everybody wants- there is no perfect solution- but there are better and worse solutions; which are more or less compatible with the most desires of the most intelligent beings.

"O so i jus do my best?"

Yes, basically.

"Wut abt 1 human, 1 miskito? Human want no bit, miskito want biting."

The desire of the mosquito, it being only marginally conscious and intelligent, is dwarfed by that of the human. Desires must be compared quantitatively, based on the extent to which they are comprehended and held, not qualitatively.

"So moar smrt always win?"

No. The desire of a human to wear live monkeys as shoes is probably a whim, and less acute than the desire of the monkeys to not be worn as shoes. Although the human is more intelligent, that desire is weak, whereas the monkeys' desire is very strong.

We have to do some rough mathematics to figure out who wins- since we don't have the technology to drill into the brains of others and extract exact numbers, we have to estimate.

To put it crudely:

2 Monkeys * 50 IQ * 99% desire = 0.99
1 human * 100IQ * 2% desire = 0.02

0.99 > 0.2

In this case, the monkeys win. Don't let him wear them as shoes.

Greater scientific insight into cognition and neuroscience will give us more information to work with, but even with very approximate numbers, it's easy to make judgement calls like that. The margin of probable error is much less than the overwhelming difference in value.

Of course, one also needs to consider factors such as virtue ethics and game theory (including social contract) in calculating comparative morality in the context of a larger number of agents or a larger society. These all factor in to some extent.

So, if 50 people wanted one guy to wear two monkeys as shoes, instead of allowing them the whim, we can act to reform those people so that they do not want that anymore- through education or social reconditioning- to achieve more of a win-win scenario.

When somebody wants to do something that is harming another, sometimes the best solution is to work to change the conflicting desires to make them more compatible.

It's a matter of psychology, economics, and marketing.

"K thnx bai"

but it does nothing for determining whether it is moral to torture people to death in order to further medical science for example.

It does determine that.

Any application or amalgamation of knowledge begins to lose its objectivity as it is tailored to be used in a certain way, for example information about IP addresses when combined with search histories when combined with a predetermined list of key words which were identified in order to assist identification of terrorists.

That's not at all true. Proper scientific methodology can identify the most useful key words and methodologies, given an adequate sampling of terrorists and non-terrorists.

The more research done on the matter, the more accurate it becomes until we reach limits of natural chaos. That doesn't make it subjective- that makes it imperfect objective methodology.

A framework of information to identify an 'objective' morality therefore, will increasingly take on subjectivity or nuances through the formulation of the structure itself; ignoring the possibility of subjective application of such a framework.

It will take on minor, random, inaccuracies, and lose precision, but it doesn't take on a subjective quality. That makes it less useful for "grey areas" where minor variations in the variables and formulation can yield large differences on the scale we're analyzing the options on (as chaotic functions)- that doesn't make it less useful for a large number of subject areas where the differences are substantial enough to overcome the degree of inaccuracy.

Just because you can't say when a single atom of a radioactive isotope will decay, doesn't mean that you can't measure a very reliable half-life for a larger quantity of that isotope.

Unpredictability at small scales, or any scale, doedn't imply subjectivity. It's not up to somebody's opinion whether an atom of hafnium decays or not.

 

[jasonwill2]

I never even mentioned logic...

But be that as it may I was essentially quoting something.

This is morality:

THE 11 SATANIC RULES OF THE EARTH
​

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3. When in another’s home, show them respect or else do not go there.
4. If a guest in your home annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9. Do not harm young children.
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

Got nine statements and nine sins too, but I disagree with the sins mostly and even some of these rules, but if ANY morality is logical, it is this.

 

[vepurusg]

This is morality:

No, that is dogmatic deontology. That is a false morality, and by vice of interfering with the pursuit of legitimate morality, it is evil (there are opportunity costs to believing lies- that is, that we are inhibited from accepting truth). What you presented is illogical, and opposed to morality.

Time and again you have introduced NO logical argument of your own, but tried to refute my actual logical arguments (without reading them) by copy+paste Satanist apologetics. Please stop copy and paste proselytizing. If you want to participate in real discussion, make an actual logical argument- your own argument in your own words.

Got nine statements and nine sins too, but I disagree with the sins mostly and even some of these rules, but if ANY morality is logical, it is this.

What you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with logic or reason, and you have presented no evidence whatsoever for a logical derivation (indeed, I have already proved elsewhere that it is illogical). If you want to assert something is logical, then learn about logic and make a logical argument for it.

These commandments you listed are arbitrary dogmatic deontology (look up the word)- they are the unfounded opinions derived as a rough corruption of Objectivism (which is already illogical and immoral) of a particular undereducated (high school dropout) pathological liar (and how) who did not understand logic or science in the least, was in no way qualified to comment on anything resembling legitimate philosophy (He didn't even understand that which he copied from), and who was making it up as he went along to promote himself as a cult leader through media sensationalism.

I will rarely speak well of the Christian bible, but even it is better posed to offer sound moral advice than that which you presented (Christianity being a product of memetic evolution to achieve cultural stability).

I repeat: Please stop copying and pasting illogical Satanist apologetics and dogma. If you want to present them WITH a logical argument, that's fine-- but you have to make your own arguments, founded in real logic, if you want to participate in real discussion.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Added to a spoiler because it is off topic and I am getting tired of cluttering up a topic about objective morality with an off topic conversation about effective methodologies (informed by science) being a basis for any morality, let alone objective morality.

Spoiler: off topic

That something is more useful in achieving a moral outcome, makes that something more moral in the context of that goal.

Moral goal -> accept Science (moral choice)
Moral goal -> reject Science (immoral choice)

Accepting and rejecting science become moral and immoral respectively when considered in the context of a moral goal.

Just because something is more likely to obtain the desired objectives does not mean it is inherently more moral, only more effective!

Moral goal -> utilising scientific knowledge for methodology (moral choice)
Immoral goal -> utilising scientific knowledge for methodology (immoral choice)

See - it is the GOAL, the intent, that determines the morality - it is true that using a less effective methodology to achieve that outcome may achieve less desirable results - but that does not make it immoral - only irrational or poorly informed.

The acceptance or rejection of science is immaterial to the morality (seriously this is not the point of this thread - if you want to continue that discussion please feel free in the other thread - this is supposed to be about objective morality)

I have already explained this, and defined it, a few times.

The way I'm using to explain it doesn't seem to be working, so I'll write an imaginary conversation:

"Hai I'm good persin! I haev goal 2 b moral"

Why oh why must your narrative include such annoying text... *sighs* Do you feel the need to paint those who reject science as morons incapable of speaking intelligibly simply because they have 'faith' in something other than (not necessarily as opposed to, but potentially as well as) science?

Moreover you use completely arbitrary values (such as the numerical associations) while attempting to suggest that they are objective - how nonsensical! By the same token that you have expressed, humans should be vegans, not build any permanent dwellings, not use land for agriculture... etc.

Virtue ethics... one heck of a way to slot that in there, as if it were a simple functional parameter rather than an extremely subjective field of philosophy.

It does determine that.

No actually it does not; in the case I presented the capacity for potentially massive informational gains which have the capacity to improve medical science to assist other people, prevent their suffering and save their lives - potentially tens of thousands of lives saved because one person was tortured to death. Using the farcical example you gave it would be something like:


1 Torture Victim * 100 IQ * 99% desire = 0.99
10,000 Patients * 100 IQ * 0.001% desire = 10.00 (lets just give this a small figure, because some of them may be willing to die in immense pain instead of having someone tortured to obtain the knowledge to save them, plus information might come from other sources, so I am willing to give this an obscenely low figure 0.001% to represent their desire to have that person tortured so that they will not die in incredible pain)

Wonderful, in your example, it is completely moral to torture someone to death since there is a chance that in doing so, it might contribute information to assist other people.

That's not at all true. Proper scientific methodology can identify the most useful key words and methodologies, given an adequate sampling of terrorists and non-terrorists.

The more research done on the matter, the more accurate it becomes until we reach limits of natural chaos. That doesn't make it subjective- that makes it imperfect objective methodology.

You seem to be missing the point that I was attempting to convey - in this point the issue was not whether or not the data was accurate (indeed as it becomes more accurate the problem becomes exacerbated), but rather whether or not the data retains its objective nature as it becomes increasingly specialised and gathered with a specific purpose in mind.

It will take on minor, random, inaccuracies, and lose precision, but it doesn't take on a subjective quality. That makes it less useful for "grey areas" where minor variations in the variables and formulation can yield large differences on the scale we're analyzing the options on (as chaotic functions)- that doesn't make it less useful for a large number of subject areas where the differences are substantial enough to overcome the degree of inaccuracy.

Let me attempt to reword it for you then - The definition of any standard is subjective, the standard itself may potentially be objective in that it is merely a metric, but the definition is never subjective... ever.

'Objective morality' is at least a move in the right direction from the 'universal morality' that has been the benchmark in the past, at least objective moralities might be 'designed' to an extent, whereas a 'universal' morality must needs be 'discovered' or 'revealed' both of which are inherently unreliable, far more so than a design, which can be altered and made to accommodate nuances which dogmatic revelation is incapable of.

 

[vepurusg]

Added to a spoiler because it is off topic and I am getting tired of cluttering up a topic about objective morality with an off topic conversation about effective methodologies (informed by science) being a basis for any morality, let alone objective morality.

Umm... no, this is about the source and nature of objective morality. This is very much on-topic: objective morality it is the topic.

You only disagree that it is the source and nature of objective morality.

Moral goal -> utilising scientific knowledge for methodology (moral choice)
Immoral goal -> utilising scientific knowledge for methodology (immoral choice)

Ah, see the very first line of the mock conversation I made; I have also mentioned it a few other times:

The assumption is that somebody wants to be moral, and that rejection of science sabotages that. Almost everybody with a concept of morality wants to be moral, or sees themselves as being moral- the rare exceptions being some angsty teenage satanists and a few very dangerous megalomaniac psychopaths (who usually become serial killers, and then revel in their fame).

I'm assuming a context of a person who wants to be moral- not somebody trying to be immoral- because that is a reasonable context that applies to nearly everybody.

IF you're trying to be a moral person, then you have to accept science.

IF you're not trying to be a moral person, then it probably doesn't really matter to you either way.


If we delineate all of the options, one can see it more clearly:


Moral goal + accept science: Most moral outcome (the only objectively moral set out of all of them)

Moral goal + reject science: Random outcome

Immoral goal + reject science: Random outcome

Immoral goal + accept science: Most immoral outcome


All of those in red are immoral sets. Rejecting science is always part of an immoral set.

As I have made clear elsewhere multiple times, but perhaps did not make clear enough in this discussion, one MUST accept science in order to be moral. However, accepting science alone doesn't guarantee morality.

Nonetheless, in examining any objective moral system, it can only be coherent in the context of the acceptance of science- that is necessary for it to be moral.

See - it is the GOAL, the intent, that determines the morality

No, intent is only part of it. One must have a moral intent, AND accept science and logic, AND have enough motivation and investment into that to see it through.

A failing on any one point can sabotage the potential for morality.

The acceptance or rejection of science is immaterial to the morality (seriously this is not the point of this thread - if you want to continue that discussion please feel free in the other thread - this is supposed to be about objective morality)

This is about objective morality, and it IS MATERIAL to morality. You think it isn't material to the subject- you are wrong, and you are expressing your opinion on the topic.

If it wasn't material, then it would be off topic.

Because it IS material, it IS the topic itself- the root and essence of the topic.

Objective morality can not exist- is incoherent- without objective knowledge, which only comes from science and logic.

Moreover you use completely arbitrary values (such as the numerical associations) while attempting to suggest that they are objective

They are objective. Just because you do not understand how and why they are objective, that doesn't mean your misunderstanding invalidates the truth.

The same way that those who do not understand evolution do not prove that it is up to opinion whether evolution is true or not. It happened. It's objective. Some people are wrong- that doesn't make it an opinion.

Virtue ethics... one heck of a way to slot that in there, as if it were a simple functional parameter rather than an extremely subjective field of philosophy.

It is a functional parameter once one identifies an objective goal by which to define virtues.

Using the farcical example you gave it would be something like:

You didn't understand my example. I made it very clear that misuses such as the one you are presenting are not logical.

Here's something more realistic:

1 Innocent Civilian Torture Victim * 100 IQ * 99% desire = 0.99
10,000 Patients * 100 IQ * 0.001% desire = 10.00
Ratio: 10/.99 = 10.10

1 Convicted Murderer Torture Victim * 80 IQ * 99% desire = 0.79
10,000 Patients * 100 IQ * 0.05% desire = 50,000.00
Ratio: 50,000/.79 = 63,291.14

63,291.14 > 10.10


Torturing an Innocent Civilian for medical knowledge to save people would be unethical given so many other options (a ratio of ten is also very ambiguous- like I said before, it's a grey area).

You're ignoring all other possibilities. We have to chose the most moral path- to fail to do so, and to do something less moral instead, would be immoral.

Wonderful, in your example, it is completely moral to torture someone to death since there is a chance that in doing so, it might contribute information to assist other people.

That was your example- using the bad logic of ignoring alternatives. You have a severe misunderstanding of consequentialism.

It might be moral to experiment on a murderer to save many, many lives (the same way it might be moral to torture a terrorist to save lives by finding the bomb he or she hid). Again, though, we would have to compare that to more alternatives.

We also have to consider game theory, and matters of virtue ethics; is this good policy? And what kinds of effects does this have on us as a society? Is it a slippery slope?

whether or not the data retains its objective nature as it becomes increasingly specialised and gathered with a specific purpose in mind.

It does, relative to that purpose. And if that purpose is objective- such as an objectively moral goal- then it is fully and completely objective.

You seem to be missing that point entirely in that regard; you're using circular reasoning to argue your point that morality is subjective:

'Morality is subjective because your methods are subjective because the goal of morality is subjective'

Or: 'Morality is subjective because morality is subjective'

That's not a valid argument. That's just a restatement of dogma.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Spoiler: Long posts annoy people who just want to skim through a thread

Umm... no, this is about the source and nature of objective morality. This is very much on-topic: objective morality it is the topic.

You only disagree that it is the source and nature of objective morality.

No, my disagreement is that it is not a source of objective morality in the slightest - it is a means by which to ascertain the most effective means by which to obtain objectives - regardless of their morality.

Ah, see the very first line of the mock conversation I made; I have also mentioned it a few other times:

The assumption is that somebody wants to be moral, and that rejection of science sabotages that. Almost everybody with a concept of morality wants to be moral, or sees themselves as being moral- the rare exceptions being some angsty teenage satanists and a few very dangerous megalomaniac psychopaths (who usually become serial killers, and then revel in their fame).

I'm assuming a context of a person who wants to be moral- not somebody trying to be immoral- because that is a reasonable context that applies to nearly everybody.

IF you're trying to be a moral person, then you have to accept science.

IF you're not trying to be a moral person, then it probably doesn't really matter to you either way.

Firstly it is a ridiculous assumption that everyone wants to be moral; but even provided that they ARE attempting to be moral, xxxx knowledge (including but not limited to scientific knowledge) assists in informing the decision making process, by which to assist developing a heuristic that makes attaining objectives more likely THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS MORAL nor that rejecting that knowledge is immoral - only foolish!

Stupidity is not immoral; deplorable yes - not 'evil', unethical, immoral or any sort of synonym you might choose to assign.

As I have made clear elsewhere multiple times, but perhaps did not make clear enough in this discussion, one MUST accept science in order to be moral. However, accepting science alone doesn't guarantee morality.

Nonetheless, in examining any objective moral system, it can only be coherent in the context of the acceptance of science- that is necessary for it to be moral.

B.S.

That would suggest that anyone who does not accept scientific knowledge, is immoral - a statement absurd both in the scope of its generalisation and its inaccuracy; the idea that simply by being uninformed someone is immoral is nothing short of a level of intellectual elitism that is itself immoral because it equates reduced intellectual capacity with reduced morality.

No, intent is only part of it. One must have a moral intent, AND accept science and logic, AND have enough motivation and investment into that to see it through.

A failing on any one point can sabotage the potential for morality.

I appreciate that you have a high emphasis on outcomes, it is understandable because so much of the suffering caused by (in)actions arises as a result of the outcomes as opposed to the intent - however failure to achieve your objectives is not immoral, it may not have the same reliability of potential positive outcomes, however that does not mean it is immoral - only less effective.

This is about objective morality, and it IS MATERIAL to morality. You think it isn't material to the subject- you are wrong, and you are expressing your opinion on the topic.

If it wasn't material, then it would be off topic.

Because it IS material, it IS the topic itself- the root and essence of the topic.

Objective morality can not exist- is incoherent- without objective knowledge, which only comes from science and logic.

Knowledge only assists in informing the decision making procedure of those involved, it may be said that relying on a more reliable source of information is more rational even more reasonable - that does not mean it is more MORAL.

Your statement that the objectiveness of morality is incoherent without knowledge does indeed make sense however if you are talking about how we might MEASURE the potential outcomes - however that does not mean that failure to adhere to a specific domain of knowledge which emphasises objectivity makes one less moral.

They are objective. Just because you do not understand how and why they are objective, that doesn't mean your misunderstanding invalidates the truth.

They are objective in terms of their application but they are ARBITRARY (and thus subjective) in terms of their assignment.

The same way that those who do not understand evolution do not prove that it is up to opinion whether evolution is true or not. It happened. It's objective. Some people are wrong- that doesn't make it an opinion.

Do not presume to know whether or not I know what you are talking about - the simple fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I do not understand what you have said, I both understand what you wrote AND what you were attempting to convey (two very slightly different things btw, not enough to bother with but different nonetheless).

I myself am a keen observer of behavioural heuristics and indeed have written several such algorithms of my own so I understand the importance of the concept that you are alluding to in identifying effective path-finding for goal acquisition - that does not however mean that such a system provides an objective morality - it does not. As one who has actually designed such a system I can tell you absolutely that they involve a very high degree of subjective elements within the design of such modules.

It is a functional parameter once one identifies an objective goal by which to define virtues.

Yeah... that being the problem... there are no such objective goals... that is the very point of this thread.

You didn't understand my example. I made it very clear that misuses such as the one you are presenting are not logical.

Here's something more realistic:

1 Innocent Civilian Torture Victim * 100 IQ * 99% desire = 0.99
10,000 Patients * 100 IQ * 0.001% desire = 10.00
Ratio: 10/.99 = 10.10

1 Convicted Murderer Torture Victim * 80 IQ * 99% desire = 0.79
10,000 Patients * 100 IQ * 0.05% desire = 50,000.00
Ratio: 50,000/.79 = 63,291.14

63,291.14 > 10.10


Torturing an Innocent Civilian for medical knowledge to save people would be unethical given so many other options (a ratio of ten is also very ambiguous- like I said before, it's a grey area).

You're ignoring all other possibilities. We have to chose the most moral path- to fail to do so, and to do something less moral instead, would be immoral.

Ahhhh so instead of taking it on face value and using the system you yourself showed (which clearly indicates that the person can be tortured to death) we instead create a new option... very well Ill create another.

1 Torture Victim with intellectual retardation * 40 IQ * 99% desire = 0.396
10,000 Patients * 100 IQ * 0.03% desire = 30,000.00
Ratio: 30,000/.396 = 75757.58 (rounded to 2dp)

75757.58 > 63,291.14

So torturing someone with intellectual retardation to death is more moral in your example than a convicted murder (DESPITE people being less likely to desire the torturing of a person with intellectual retardation).

BS

That was your example- using the bad logic of ignoring alternatives. You have a severe misunderstanding of consequentialism.

Excellent then that I provided yet another example, even more pronounced in its 'objective morality' according to your system.

We also have to consider game theory, and matters of virtue ethics; is this good policy? And what kinds of effects does this have on us as a society? Is it a slippery slope?

All of these require subjective interpretations of potential outcomes.

It does, relative to that purpose. And if that purpose is objective- such as an objectively moral goal- then it is fully and completely objective.

You seem to be missing that point entirely in that regard; you're using circular reasoning to argue your point that morality is subjective:

'Morality is subjective because your methods are subjective because the goal of morality is subjective'

Or: 'Morality is subjective because morality is subjective'

That's not a valid argument. That's just a restatement of dogma.

I am sorry, however you continue to make the same problem - that because DATA is objective, the selection of that data and the use of that selection are also objective... they are not. It is a process that is governed through the creation of specific criteria which must needs be selected - how? By how they are perceived (which is ALWAYS subjective) to meet the objectives (which might well be objective) such as the selection of IQ as a factor (as well as the weighting in terms of its importance) on the issue of determining whom (if anyone) it is more moral to torture to death... rather self serving for someone who has a high IQ btw since it means that THEIR desires are more important than those around them (btw I do not believe in IQ tests - though score close to three standard deviations above the mean)

 

[vepurusg]

No, my disagreement is that it is not a source of objective morality in the slightest

Yes it is. I say it's a source, through logical deduction, of deriving Objective morality.

You dispute that (without evidence or reason, might I add).

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS MORAL nor that rejecting that knowledge is immoral - only foolish!

Yes, it does.

Choosing to be foolish instead of wise, wherein the choice is available, is the choice to act randomly instead of reliably- it it the choice to make one's moral intent ineffective instead of effective.

It negates the moral intent to a very large degree- it is an immoral choice.

B.S.

Your assertion without evidence or logic is. You have not refuted any of my arguments.

That would suggest that anyone who does not accept scientific knowledge, is immoral

No, it's a matter of comparison; opportunity cost.

In the times before science was available, that would not have been the case (because people had no means to accept it, and so it wasn't a choice they could make).
Likewise, uncontacted tribes, and those starving and ignorant, without education, in third world countries don't have the choice.

Anybody on the internet- reading this- has the ability to learn about and understand Science- and the choice to accept it (fulfilling moral responsibility), or reject it (sabotaging morality, by an immoral choice).

it equates reduced intellectual capacity with reduced morality.

No, it doesn't. If somebody is intellectually incapable of understanding science, they can not make a choice to reject it.

Babies, the retarded, other species of animals, rocks... none of those are immoral. They are largely amoral; without a concept of morality.

however failure to achieve your objectives is not immoral,

No, it isn't. Unless you, out of hubris or apathy, rejected a superior method (science) and harmed people because you were too proud to use reason.

it may not have the same reliability of potential positive outcomes, however that does not mean it is immoral - only less effective.

Choosing a less effective strategy when you have the option of choosing a more effective one is immoral.

it may be said that relying on a more reliable source of information is more rational even more reasonable - that does not mean it is more MORAL.

The act of rejecting rationality and reason, and as a consequence hurting people, is immoral when one had the option of accepting it and hurting them less / helping them.

You might as well say that drunk driving isn't immoral. Getting intoxicated, thus reducing your reflexes and ability to react, and then getting behind the wheel is very immoral.

Rejecting science and reason is very much like choosing to drive drunk- and usually done for the same reasons- hubris and apathy.

however that does not mean that failure to adhere to a specific domain of knowledge which emphasises objectivity makes one less moral.

I have demonstrated why it does. If you disagree with that, you should make an argument against it instead of making the same assertions.

They are objective in terms of their application but they are ARBITRARY (and thus subjective) in terms of their assignment.

They do not have to be. The more they are studied, the more accurate they can be made.

However, the objectivity of the goal is by no means lessened by the imperfection of heuristics in pursuit of that goal.

As one who has actually designed such a system I can tell you absolutely that they involve a very high degree of subjective elements within the design of such modules.

Not if done properly. They involve a degree of guessing and estimation where certain knowledge is unavailable- that doesn't mean they can't be improved further to eliminate that inaccuracy.

Yeah... that being the problem... there are no such objective goals... that is the very point of this thread.

There are objective goals; you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

Why would you even argue against virtue ethics used in respect to objective goals when they were mentioned in that obvious context? You're ignoring a premise to criticize a conclusion which was stated only in the context of that premise- obviously virtue ethics don't work outside the context of objective goals (I wouldn't have brought them up out of that context).

Ahhhh so instead of taking it on face value and using the system you yourself showed (which clearly indicates that the person can be tortured to death) we instead create a new option... very well Ill create another.

That was face value. Like I have said many times- choosing something sub-optimal is not a moral course of action.

1 Torture Victim with intellectual retardation * 40 IQ * 99% desire = 0.396
10,000 Patients * 100 IQ * 0.03% desire = 30,000.00
Ratio: 30,000/.396 = 75757.58 (rounded to 2dp)

75757.58 > 63,291.14

So torturing someone with intellectual retardation to death is more moral in your example than a convicted murder (DESPITE people being less likely to desire the torturing of a person with intellectual retardation).

Numbers would have to be determined more accurately by surveys, MRI, etc. (I highly doubt people are that accepting of the idea) But you're getting closer.

This conclusion more closely resembles non-human animal testing, for example.
There are, of course, still other options which are vastly superior than either (and this example has only taken into account a small number of variables, which are dwarfed by other factors).

BS

You didn't prove anything.

You know, many people say evolution is false because it would result in "Social darwinism" if it were true. Basically, "I don't like this, therefore it's false"- that's what you're doing here.

You can't prove a fact to be false by saying you don't like it, or its consequences.

Truth is truth; you just have to deal with it.

That's objective morality, and that is (roughly) how it works.


Here are some other options to consider too:

0 IQ (no brain activity)- Such as cloning bodies with congenital anencephaly.

Legalizing weed so people don't have to suffer so much from terminal illness (which might reduce their willingness to let others suffer to be cured).

The availability of volunteers.

Don't ignore the people who aren't sick, who may disagree even more with the testing and don't want to live in a society that does that.

Consider the balance of negative social ramifications (social contract) and upon future attitudes and behaviors (value ethics)



There are countless factors, and feedback mechanisms within, to consider- only by identifying them and learning more about cognition can we come closer to certain answers in these grey areas.

All of these require subjective interpretations of potential outcomes.

The real outcome, is the real outcome; it's a probability distribution based on all of the laws of physics and upon quantum mechanical chaos.

Imprecise knowledge of that doesn't make it subjective- it makes it imprecise. As we learn more about the world and human behavior, those predictions become better and better.

By how they are perceived (which is ALWAYS subjective) to meet the objectives (which might well be objective) such as the selection of IQ as a factor (as well as the weighting in terms of its importance) on the issue of determining whom (if anyone) it is more moral to torture to death...

The selection of IQ is an approximation; like I said, there are large error bars involved in this kind of thing.

A more accurate measure would be taking an MRI to determine metabolic expenditure in areas of the brain associated with emotion/motivational factors and cognition. That would tell us how much energy was being put into processing those goals (how much thinking is going on with regards to any concept), giving us a better idea of how important they are and how deeply they are being comprehended by the subject.

We also need to study how these things add up (linearly, or non-linearly)

We can compare computer processing power and software on very precise terms; comparing wetware is a very fuzzy job (which will become clearer as neuroscience advances).

For lack of absolute knowledge on the topic, we just have to make our best, most objective guess (objective as in, no fine-tuning it after the fact to make it meet our preferences).

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Spoiler: On arguments, opportunity, less moral and identificaiton of a new premise underlying your argument

Firstly, I have had to cut short quotes denoted by '(-->)'; also '(...)' has been used to denote where I have added a second quoted section.

Yes it is. I say it's a source, through logical deduction, of deriving Objective morality.

You dispute that (without evidence or reason, might I add).
(...)
Your assertion without evidence or logic is. You have not refuted any of my arguments.
(...)
I have demonstrated why it does. If you disagree with that, you should make an argument against it instead of making the same assertions.

I have indeed provided reason (not much evidence I admit though I contend easily comparable to that your own) that you disagree does not change that reasoning has been given for arguments I have made and against the arguments you have made.

Yes, it does.

Choosing to be foolish instead of wise, wherein the choice is available (-->)

It negates the moral intent to a very large degree- it is an immoral choice.
(...)
Choosing a less effective strategy when you have the option of choosing a more effective one is immoral.
(...)
That was face value. Like I have said many times- choosing something sub-optimal is not a moral course of action.

I COMPLETELY AGREE it is ineffective instead of effective. I also agree it is therefore an irrational choice given sufficient reason to believe that potential outcome realisation is impaired. That does not mean it is immoral - just that it is ineffecive, even irrational.

No, it's a matter of comparison; opportunity cost.

In the times before science was available, that would not have been the case (-->)
Likewise, uncontacted tribes, and those starving and ignorant (-->)

Anybody on the internet- reading this- has the ability to learn about and understand Science- and the choice to accept it (fulfilling moral responsibility), or reject it (sabotaging morality, by an immoral choice).

Therefore, all who have the opportunity but do not embrace scientific reasoning? Evil? What utter nonsense to suggest people who do not embrace science are incapable or even merely less capable of being moral people. They may have less information by which to inform their decision making in order to achieve more reliable outcomes, I agree; that does not mean they are immoral, only unwise.

No, it doesn't. If somebody is intellectually incapable of understanding science, they can not make a choice to reject it.

Babies, the retarded, other species of animals, rocks... none of those are immoral. They are largely amoral; without a concept of morality.

I did not say immoral, I said less moral - your earlier statements mean just that. People intellectually capable of accepting scientific knowledge but do not for whatever reason (being unable to torture one family member to death in order to avoid the summary execution of all other family members for example) - are - according to the standard you have outlined, less moral, because they are unable to utilise that scientific knowledge in order to achieve optimum positive outcomes.

No, it isn't. Unless you, out of hubris or apathy, rejected a superior method (-->)
(...)
The act of rejecting rationality and reason, and as a consequence hurting people, is immoral (-->)

You might as well say that drunk driving isn't immoral. (-->)

Rejecting science and reason is very much like choosing to drive drunk- and usually done for the same reasons- hubris and apathy.

Here, you suggest an entirely new premise.

That the person supposedly knows how to achieve a positive outcome and chooses not to because of a specific reason: hubris or apathy, terms with distinct moral connotations. So it is no longer simply rejecting science, but rather the reasons they are rejecting it are 'immoral'; well sure, who could argue against something being 'immoral' if it is done for 'immoral' reasons in fact I said as much in an earlier post.

I had to split this into two sections to make it manageable.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Spoiler: On inherently subjective criteria selection and amalgamation

However, the objectivity of the goal is by no means lessened by the imperfection of heuristics in pursuit of that goal.
(...)
There are objective goals; you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

Not imperfection of the heuristics, subjectivity of the goal designation; the PURPOSE for which the heuristic was designed. That remains subjective - the heuristic IS objective, the purpose is not and can NEVER be - because it IS designated. There are an infinite number of potential goals, in that regard they are objective; HOWEVER, one or more must be selected - selection is not objective, it is discretionary, a subjective process.

For lack of absolute knowledge on the topic, we just have to make our best, most objective guess (-->)

'Arbitrary' is a more fitting term given the description you have made; Ill justify this criticism here below.

They do not have to be. The more they are studied, the more accurate they can be made.
(...)
Not if done properly. They involve a degree of guessing and estimation (-->)
(...)
The selection of IQ is an approximation; (-->)

A more accurate measure would be (-->)

We also need to study how these things add up (-->)
(...)
The real outcome, is the real outcome; it's a probability (-->)

Imprecise knowledge of that doesn't make it subjective- it makes it imprecise(-->)

Yet they still remain subjective, the criteria to be measured must be selected (because they are selected from an infinite number of possible objectives, therefore the selection itself is based on discretion), the particular criteria and their measurements can be made more 'accurate' in terms of the formula's accuracy in its depiction of people's desire to have that individual tortured to death, however the specific individuals still retain subjectivity because what they measure (desire to live, desire to avoid suffering, apathy towards torture of criminals, apathy towards torture of the intellectually disabled etc) ARE subjective; they also remain subjective in terms of the mechanism by which those specific criteria are combined (both the weightings and benchmarks used).

Why would you even argue against virtue ethics (-->)

I am not arguing against virtue ethics... I am merely pointing out that they are a massive limitation of your proposed system (as are the aforementioned issues such as desire to avoid death) whereupon you attempt to convert a subjective issue into an objective issue; to make a move from qualitative to quantitative invovles a process which attempts to objectify subjective things, this works by establishing a set of benchmarks or standards with a metric - however, the designation of these are subjective in that they involve complex decisions on how to measure subjective phenonemon... I really cannot explain this more simply for you... its a subjective process even if the intention is to deliver an objective outcome.

You know, many people say (-->)

You can't prove a fact to be false by saying you don't like it (-->)

Truth is truth; you just have to deal with it.

That's objective morality, and that is (roughly) how it works.

There are MANY things I do not like and still accept them to be true; I actually LIKE scientific attempts to assist in decision making processes; however I do not accept them to be optimal in all cases, PARTICULARLY where highly subjective issues are concerned.

Here are some other options to consider too: (-->)
(...)
Numbers would have to be determined more accurately by surveys, MRI, etc. (I highly doubt people are that accepting of the idea) But you're getting closer.

This conclusion more closely resembles non-human animal testing, for example.
There are, of course, still other options which are vastly superior than either (-->)
(...)
There are countless factors, and feedback mechanisms within, to consider(-->)

So in short, torturing person unfortunate enough to be intellectually disabled is more moral (not neccessarily the most moral choice - but MORE moral) in your scenario than torturing a convicted murderer. Even though in that scenario they were more willing to torture a convicted murder; according to the system you advocate, that would have been a less moral choice.

Why? Because the selection of criteria, the means by which they are measured and the way those measurements are combined are all subjective yet their use in an objective framework merely makes that subjectivity inflexible (because the framework, by nature of being fixed - does not adapt in order to accomodate relevant factors that were not included within the original design) not truly objective.

You didn't prove anything.

Of course not. However I DID show that your system supports an intuitively less desirable outcome and purports it to be more moral, simply based on one person being more intelligent than another - and therefore more 'moral' to torture to death, as if one specific criteria (intellectual quotient in this case) made one person more worthy to live than another.

Do you see the importance of criteria selection, measurement and inclusion within the decision making model? The vast amount of subjectivity involved? Don't get me wrong, intellectual capacity seems an intuitively appropraite criteria - but how might we measure it? how might we combine it? We can perhaps design a more fitting model... yet that would involve a large degree of subjective influence in the design process. Even if you had a computer design the process for you, the design of the algorithm which governed the subsequent process design was developed through a subjective process.

It is unavoidable. That is the last I will say on this particular matter, because I know there are a number of technical arguments that contest this, but none of them can avoid the influence of source subjectivity of design.

Though it is nice that we are now more on topic (i.e. more of the discussion is on criteria and outcomes - subjectivity vs objectivity as opposed to centring around the importance of science - which I have always agreed is important)

 

[vepurusg]

Sorry this is kind of long; I repeat myself a little on some points when I was responding; I don't have time to edit it tonight for brevity (Too many meetings tomorrow, way behind).

To preface:
I think much of our argument may come down to the usage of "objective" and "subjective"

I'm using Objective in two distinct ways:
1. Without Bias (science)
2. Fact, not Opinion (philosophy)

I'm using Subjective in one way:
1. Opinion (as distinct from a guess of a fact, or an inaccurate fact/bias)

Spoiler: This is still on topic, but it's starting to verge a little into semantics. Pt 1

Not imperfection of the heuristics, subjectivity of the goal designation; the PURPOSE for which the heuristic was designed.

That purpose is already assumed to be objective before we even get to the Heuristics (that's the other part of the argument).

Of course if you don't agree that the goal is objective, the result wouldn't be.

the heuristic IS objective, the purpose is not and can NEVER be - because it IS designated.

Objective goal + Objective Heuristic = Objective result.

You seem to be mixing them up and also accusing the Heuristic of subjectivity because you consider the goal subjective.

I'll address the Objectivity of the Hueristic first, but there's also another issue that is crucially important (and which is the main issue):

Most Objective Heuristic/Information (even given imperfection) = Most Moral Heuristic = Objectively Moral Choice of Heuristic.

Yet they still remain subjective, the criteria to be measured must be selected (because they are selected from an infinite number of possible objectives, therefore the selection itself is based on discretion)

No, the ultimate criteria is defined objectively- a matter of the collective interests of other conscious beings. That's a real thing- that comes from the Objective moral Goal. That is not an issue of the Heuristic.

How we measure those interests is the matter in question. And science can inform that measurement in an objective way (more and more precisely, and more accurately, as we better understand cognition).

sub·jec·tive
   [suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
[...]

The interests of a conscious being are objectively real with respect to that being- they exist as true things- they are even precisely measurable given the right technology. That we do not know how to measure them precisely does not make our attempts to do so subjective (in the sense of an opinion) it makes them imprecise, and possibly inaccurate.

Subjective (in the sense that it is capable of a binary contamination) is an opinion- like whether a painting is beautiful, or whether or not peanut butter is delicious.

At no time do scientific endeavors become true opinions- they are just attempts to measure fact that may go awry (such as by inaccurate or imprecise information).

One person thinks string theory is on the right track- another person disagrees entirely. It is not opinion as to whether String theory (or something very much like it) is true or not- it is objective fact. One of those people are wrong, and one is right.

That there was no evidence to prove either way excuses the wrong party for being wrong (he or she couldn't have known better), and costs the right party any self-satisfaction for having been right (he or she was just a good guesser).

A guess about a fact, is not the same as an opinion.

A guess can be right or wrong. And opinion is neither.


Our uncertainty about the nature of cognition leads to GUESSES, but these guesses are not opinions. It is a degree of inaccuracy, for which we can not be blamed, but NOT something that makes it subjective in that sense.

If we don't know which is more accurate- EQ, IQ- we have to guess to move forward. That's a guess with regards to accuracy- maybe a right guess wrong guess- but it's not an opinion.

It is not now, nor will it ever be, an opinion.


When the heuristic incorporates guesses, it becomes imprecise or potentially inaccurate- but it does not become an opinion. It does not become Subjective (in the sense of all or nothing contamination).

If the heuristic incorporated an opinion- like whether something was beautiful- without respect to those who held it to objectify it, THEN and ONLY THEN would it become subjective in the sense of an opinion.

This Heuristic doesn't incorporate any opinions; it incorporates guesses.

Maybe in common usage, people can confuse opinions and guesses, and think they have the same meaning. Philosophically, however, they are very distinct- they do not in any respect have the same logical meaning.

With respect to the objectivity of science, it is a matter of eliminating biases (in that sense, objective means without biases)-- those kinds of biases are not opinions, but based on perception and information processing biases-- sampling biases, and any other. Most biases that are being controlled for in scientific experiments aren't even known by the experimenters (it has nothing to do with opinion), and have nothing to do with their expectations (which is why experimental control groups are used- to control for things we can't anticipate and don't even know about). A bias of that type introduces ERRORS, not opinions.

Flaws in that process aren't called "Subjective" , they are accounted for in statistical analysis and margins of error, and in the case of something systemic which biased the experiment, it's a matter of inaccuracy caused by poor methodology.

In trying to represent the weight of interests of a conscious being with something like IQ or EQ (which attempt to use standardized metrics), it is THAT kind of inaccuracy we have (using something we know to introduce some margin of error)- NOT an encroachment of opinion/subjectivity.


Anyway, and as I have said many times:

Currently, our understanding of cognition is insufficient to measure these values precisely- which means in a trivial example like those we were discussing, we estimate for sake of argument (and ease of use). I was not trying to insist that IQ was the way to do it (IQ is only vaguely correlated to the actual issue at hand).

That doesn't mean those estimations are reliable except for when the answers come out in the extremes of negative or positive.

And that doesn't make the process, applied properly, subjective- just inaccurate to the degree that IQ is inaccurate as a representation of what is really at issue.


If you find objection to the approximation of "IQ" for explanatory purposes, we can make the heuristic more accurate and less precise by introducing ranges:

When there is uncertainty in science, we apply a margin of error to every relevant number and operation.

The study of cognition is not so immature that we do not at least know to a reasonable objective certainty that a normal human possesses more substantial interests than an amoeba.

Maybe Chimps are superior to us, in respect to the substantial quality of their interests- that seems unlikely, but it's within the bounds of our uncertainty.

Some things are not outside the bounds of that uncertainty, some things are.

In order to make the heuristic more accurate, all we have to do is apply that uncertainty to it in the best way we are able.

Some results will come out innately grey; without an answer beyond the bounds of uncertainty. Some will come out very clearly moral or immoral.

That's my point about grey areas; those numbers- and the means of measurement (e.g. IQ, EQ, brain mass, metabolic expenditure, whatever)- have to have error bars on them in order for the heuristic to show us where the answers are (currently) meaningful, and where they are not.

That does not mean that we can not get meaningful and reliable objective (in the sense of NOT opinion) measurements, in so far as science can yield data to make them by, taking into account that uncertainty as a margin of error.

The heuristic turning out "insufficient data to draw conclusion" is not a flaw, but a representation of our own uncertainty as to the precise workings of the world around us-- that does not affect the objectivity of the goal itself, or the objectivity of the morality of following the best heuristic we have.

As science advances, we will have to guess less and less, we'll be able to measure things more properly, and the error bars will shrink, allowing the heuristic to provide more meaningful answers in that grey area.

however the specific individuals still retain subjectivity because what they measure (desire to live, desire to avoid suffering, apathy towards torture of criminals, apathy towards torture of the intellectually disabled etc) ARE subjective;

Those are not subjective. It is an objective truth that Billy is apathetic towards torturing criminals.

Whether torturing criminals is fun or not is subjective (opinion).
Whether BILLY thinks torturing criminals is fun or not is objective (fact).

Measuring what Billy thinks in an objective way comes down to Scientific methodology (methodology that just happens to be poorly developed).

Any uncertainty as to his opinions have to be related into the equations themselves and carry on to the results. To not do so would be bad methodology- implying a degree of certainty higher than that which it actually is.

 

[vepurusg]

Spoiler: This may be mostly semantics. Part 2

they also remain subjective in terms of the mechanism by which those specific criteria are combined (both the weightings and benchmarks used).

If we aren't sure if something should be added linearly, or non-linearly as to represent the weight of a collective intelligence as influenced by the bottleneck of information transfer between individuals and other factors, then the safe thing is to do both, and represent that as uncertainty in the results.

Maybe a thousand people against one adds up more like ten to one if the interests are summed non-linearly. Either way, it's something that bears examination.

As we come to better understand cognition, and intelligent organized information systems, we'll be able to narrow that down more.

This is a framework that needs to be better developed through scientific methodology.

That doesn't, however, make it useless- given our modern knowledge, there are less ambiguous cases which, even with substantial margins of error, are clearly win-win or lose-lose and amount to unambiguous moral rights or wrongs.

And even within grey areas, when it comes to a situation where we must make choices, the variable degree of moral probability (which is what the output ultimately ends up as, with regards to each available parameter) can inform us in making the best, most reliable, moral choice that we currently have the information to do.

By no means does morality imply the necessity for total analysis paralysis- instead, it insists that we make the best, most probable, choice which is within our grasp. Grey areas don't afford moral certainty- although they do afford a more reliable sense of moral probability than do arbitrary human whims.

That is the more important point:

Most Objective Heuristic/Information (that is, eliminating for as much bias and error as possible, even given imperfection) = Most Moral Heuristic = Objectively Moral Choice of Heuristic.

More Accurate Heuristic > Less Accurate Heuristic > Random Scripture

There's nothing perfect, but given the evidence, we are morally obligated to choose the best available method.

Given Heuristic A and Heuristic B have no evidence to help us favor one over the other, and they are mutually exclusive where action is forced, then we must guess (like the string theorist and his adversary), and can not be faulted for guessing wrong, or praised for guessing right.

No Empirical science is 100% objective (with regards to being without error- it is 0% opinion); scientific methodology is just the process of eliminating bias and error as much as is possible. That doesn't invalidate science- it doesn't contaminate the whole as subjective rubbish.

It is a moral obligation to use the most objective information (science) and most accurate heuristics (even if they involve some guessing to put together) at our disposals.

By virtue of being the most accurate available, they become the most moral choice available- and thus are an objectively (which means not opinion, and does not mean flawless) moral choice of methodology.

Though the results may be imperfect, and some in terms of very nebulous probability, they are the best we have, and so do BECOME the moral thing to do (without any better options).

I am not arguing against virtue ethics... I am merely pointing out that they are a massive limitation of your proposed system

That's not a limitation, it's a component. Yes, we have to do our best to predict the effects of actions. Virtue ethics are a matter of, for the most part, sociology and predictive game theory (There is at least substantial correlative data to corroborate theories, and experimentation and controls are possible).

Game theory is not a limitation on economics- it facilitates its optimal practice.

the designation of these are subjective in that they involve complex decisions on how to measure subjective phenonemon...

And those decisions become more clear the better we understand those phenomena. I can't explain that more simply. Uncertainty doesn't violate objectivity (non-subjectivity/ non-opinion nature), it just introduces a margin of error.

IQ, EQ, brain mass, metabolism- these are NOT merely subjective, and their use is not even completely inaccurate. They have strong correlations with the subject that needs to be measured.

It is better to use any one of them, despite their imperfect representation, than to just give up and roll the dice, look it up in a Bronze aged scripture, or just decide entirely based on personal whim.

The issue is "what heuristic is the most accurate"- it doesn't have to be without any approximation anywhere to be the morally superior option. As I've said before, there is no area of science that is completely without some outside influence of estimation (any theory or interpretation of information- like Evolution- only makes the most sense).

Is IQ or EQ better? Well, that isn't clear. The degree of ambiguity that question carries is the precise degree of ambiguity in the answer- but by no means is that complete ambiguity (enough to make grey areas suspect, but not enough to invalidate more clear determinations- IQ and EQ do correlate pretty strongly at the extremes).

its a subjective process even if the intention is to deliver an objective outcome.

That's BS. You might as well call all Science completely subjective opinion, and dismiss it all out of hand to favor personal whim.

Inaccuracy of fact doesn't make something opinion.

 

[vepurusg]

Spoiler: and the last bit of semantics

So in short, torturing person unfortunate enough to be intellectually disabled is more moral (not neccessarily the most moral choice - but MORE moral) in your scenario than torturing a convicted murderer.

Given those numbers (which are probably wrong, or at least have substantial degree of uncertainty), that linear comparison, and considering only that event as if in a bubble in space and time- sure.

Those are completely unrealistic assumptions, though- we can't expect any of that to translate reliably to reality- and I made clear as much.

their use in an objective framework merely makes that subjectivity inflexible (because the framework, by nature of being fixed - does not adapt in order to accomodate relevant factors that were not included within the original design) not truly objective.

That is completely false, and an absurd misrepresentation. The heuristic and information can and should adapt to new information just as other science does.

Do you even understand the difference between deontology and consequentialism?

Consequentialism is ADAPTIVE. I think you need to do some reading if you're that far off base.

Again, you seem to be interpreting "objective" as "infallible". That is not the case.

It is objective as in FACT rather than OPINION. A fact can have various degree of accuracy- and as we learn, we can improve our understanding of it to make our factual knowledge more accurate.


It is the goal which is objective, and the framework which is most accurate in the context of the information we currently have- as we learn more, the framework improves (as it should and MUST in order to remain the most moral option).

Do you see the importance of criteria selection, measurement and inclusion within the decision making model?

You say that as if it is not something that I have spent the past several posts (and an entire thread) explaining.

The vast amount of subjectivity involved?

There's no opinion taken into it as a variable (at worst it's a wrong guess), and more importantly, one doesn't have to arbitrarily select one, so we don't even have to add more uncertainty to the heuristic by guessing (the output can just represent that uncertainty).

Accurately measuring the interests of a conscious being (which is the objective criteria up for comparison) is not subjective- it is simply something for which we don't have available means with our current grasp of neuroscience.

Using the next best thing is not subjective- it is simply slightly inaccurate (and we must recognize it as such, and take the conclusions with respect to that).

IQ was a stand-in, and I thought I made that clear a few times (that it was not strictly correct).

Where there is no clear "next best thing", any selection from among those options would be viable.

1. IQ
2. EQ
3. Brain mass
4. Coin toss

One of these things is not like the other!

Using #4 to determine it would be objectively immoral- that would violate the process (because it is evidenced to less likely be true).

Wherein it is unclear, and wherein we have multiple options (Usually we only have Brain mass, for most animals) any one of those (1, 2, or 3) yields more probable moral results than anything else we have.

If there was some new information to differentiate them, then that would change.

As it stands, IQ or EQ are both potentially of equal validity (maybe EQ more so- it's hard to say without more study). To get a better grasp of the uncertainty, we need to be aware of all of them. We can't just grab one out of the air and proclaim it in ignorance of the others.

Methodology is an adaptive and learning process.

Don't get me wrong, intellectual capacity seems an intuitively appropraite criteria - but how might we measure it?

We don't know- we have to look at what is available and do the best we can.

If you run a heuristic with IQ, and it says it's moral, but then you do it with EQ, and it says it's immoral- then the result is inconclusive unless you have evidence that IQ is better than EQ (in which case, the weight of that evidence contributes to probability distribution between the two).

As we come to understand cognition better, we'll probably develop better systems than either (which are both pretty poor).

Even if you had a computer design the process for you, the design of the algorithm which governed the subsequent process design was developed through a subjective process.

Something could be designed using an adaptive neural network, but you'd need some kind of binary or analog feedback to say whether the results were moral or immoral so that the system could evolve under those selective pressures. Of course, such feedback would be unavailable in this case.

but none of them can avoid the influence of source subjectivity of design.

Design is a matter of guessing, not opinion. Even if you had said guessing (from among equally probable forms), that's not strictly true: As I said, one can incorporate that uncertainty into the heuristic itself.

And the ACTUAL argument (regarding the OBJECTIVE GOAL):

That does not mean it is immoral - just that it is ineffecive, even irrational.

It does, because being ineffective towards a moral (good) outcome at the cost of the opportunity to be more effective is an immoral (bad) choice.

What problem do you have with that reasoning?

Therefore, all who have the opportunity but do not embrace scientific reasoning? Evil?

The choice to reject Science is an evil one. We'd have to look at how much science they're rejecting, how relevant, etc. But, at the extreme, that is basically true.

Those people are doing something immoral by rejecting science.

What utter nonsense to suggest people who do not embrace science are incapable or even merely less capable of being moral people.

That is not an argument against my point.

And indeed, what you just said is complete nonsense. It's nonsense to suggest that they aren't less capable of being moral- they have chosen to make themselves ignorant, and thus impotent, at behaving morally.

They've chosen to jump behind the wheel of the car, completely **** faced.

Sacrificing judgement and endangering others is immoral. That is what is being done by rejecting science.

They may have less information by which to inform their decision making in order to achieve more reliable outcomes, I agree; that does not mean they are immoral, only unwise.

So, you'll say drunk drivers (particularly repeat offenders) are not behaving immorally when they drive intoxicated- only without wisdom?

How about pedophiles, when they pedo? Are they behaving unwisely, but morally?

I'll tell you that a fair number of them are delusional, and convince themselves that they aren't hurting the children they pedo. They choose to delude themselves.

I did not say immoral, I said less moral - your earlier statements mean just that.

Of course babies are not as capable of morality; they can not comprehend the concept.

People intellectually capable of accepting scientific knowledge but do not for whatever reason [...are] less moral, because they are unable to utilise that scientific knowledge in order to achieve optimum positive outcomes.

Yes. Your example is an intentional red-herring though.

Here, you suggest an entirely new premise.

That the person supposedly knows how to achieve a positive outcome and chooses not to because of a specific reason: hubris or apathy, terms with distinct moral connotations.

That's not a new premise; I'm just explaining why they reject science to make it more clear what that rejection entails.

So it is no longer simply rejecting science, but rather the reasons they are rejecting it are 'immoral'; well sure, who could argue against something being 'immoral' if it is done for 'immoral' reasons in fact I said as much in an earlier post.

People reject science either because they do not care enough to investigate the truth, or don't care what is true, but merely want to be ignorant and are afraid of knowledge that might contradict that regardless of the consequences- APATHY.
Or because they are prideful- so sure that their assumptions, or their family's assumptions (through pride in family/heritage/identity) are already right that they won't open their minds to alternatives- HUBRIS.

People do not reject science for other reasons.

Sometimes people are just ignorant of science, through no fault of their own- I am not blaming them. They have not rejected it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I am going to summarise because this is simply getting too long and is annoying for other people to read (i.e. other than Vepurusg and I) if you wish an indepth one, I am more than open to doing so, however I think we are making this thread a one on one discussion which is not its intention - so I would recommend PMs or the member board messages. I was the first one to be so rude as to dissect your post enough to require multiple posts, so I think that it is my responsibility to try to pull it back to a more concise format.

Our disagreement stems from several points (I will not attempt to present the argument here for either side); I originally identified which position was held by whom, however found that to be too confrontational and was removed to promote more amiable discourse.

Reason behind rejection of information / method to achieve more reliable outcomes
Position - Assuming the reasoning to be immoral is a hasty assumption as it may not always be the same for all people.
Position - Failure to select the mechanism that allows optimal outcomes is always due to apathy or hubris and is therefore immoral; where you have the opportunity to choose the more reliable option.

Reliability of positive outcomes infers superior 'moral' capacity of method used
Position - Failure to choose the optimal choice is not rational; however, potenital outcome comparison is highly subjective.
Position - Choosing sub optimal outcomes is immoral; quantifiable mechanisms exist for objective comparison.

Subjectivity/Objectivity of Purpose or Goal
Position - There is subjectivity in any determination of purpose designation, even if only due to source subjectivity of design; this includes selecting criteria, measuring criteria and utilising those measurements to inform the heuristic.
Position - It is assumed objective goals are selected which enables an objective process. Also, more accurate measures and heuristics can be designed if found to systematically suggest intuitively less 'moral' outcomes as being more 'moral' (or vice versa).

Spoiler: Now here is my argument in relation to the three areas

Reason behind rejection of information / method to achieve more reliable outcomes
People make the decisions they do for a huge range of reasons, to assume that they reject a particular peice of information or methodology (which happens to be scientifically sound) for one of a number of very limited reasons is unsound, a more sound assumption would be to assume that the reasons why they have not accepted it are less likely those that are characteristic of that particular knowledge or methodology (i.e. they have probably not ruled it out because it is less reliable; because it is more reliable). In some cases it may well be out of apathy or hubris, however to suggest that this is always the case is an unfounded generalisation.

Reliability of positive outcomes infers superior 'moral' capacity of method used
Choosing the optimal outcomes is the rational choice, therefore, not doing so is irrational. Identifying the potential outcomes is an issue of being informed about the possibilities, this is a field where probabilities may well be determined and therefore a likely outcome(s) identified for each choice or method.

However, comparing those possibilities is subjective, it is possible to objectify subjective data in numerous ways - it requires that one establish criteria and benchmarks, then simply apply them (see below on goals) however as indicated by the identification of these criteria and standards this is then the result of design based subjectivity (rather than simply the direct subjectivity normally affecting our decision making), additionally there may exist an inherent bias in favour of (or against) a set of choices or methods (though this last point can largely be mitigated through quantification as Vepurusg has suggested).

Subjectivity/Objectivity of Purpose or Goal
Different criteria be identified to be used as the basis of comparison, there are an infinite number of potential points of comparison. All criteria are, in and of themselves, objective; however, their selection is not. The selection of any specific set from this infinite selection is a process that conforms to different criteria in and of itself (number of required criteria, ease of measurement, pattern of distribution and designated 'must haves' for example) the selection criteria included within the design are largely either discretionary, or resulting from preestablished criteria (which then face the same subjective influence).

It is possible to adapt the criteria and the way that they are used in order to provide different heuristics, none of which are intrinsically 'morally' inferior to the others, none of which are flawed in that they each deliver the result they were designed to; instead the comparison of such heuristics result occur either due to the afore mentioned criteria or discretion based comparisons; the former incorporates the less direct source subjectivity of design while the later is more directly subjective. However the assumption that objective goals or criteria can be identified is flawed, because while all criteria are objective, their selection is not.

 

[vepurusg]

Ah, yes, this is better, thanks.

You got my positions about 70% correct.

...is always due to apathy or hubris and is therefore immoral; where you have the opportunity to choose the more reliable option.

The phrasing you used is a little confusing.

Failure of morality is always comparably immoral- not simply because of its cause (apathy, hubris)- the issue is whether the person acted immorally (that is, whether the person is at fault for that immorality).

The fault of immorality could rest, instead, upon the parents, or even upon the memetic construct of the society that is yielding those results.

That is, there's evil there- the question instead is who to blame.

Much as in Christian or Islamic doctrines, I hold that is it still bad when people fail, but the blame does not necessarily fall on those who did not have a choice™.

(Choice is a complicated issue itself)

We might be able to consider the matter of who is to blame for an evil to be subjective- that doesn't invalidate the objectivity of that evil, though.

Kind of like the matter of who is really at fault for a traffic accident- the accident still happened objectively, even if assigning blame is like nailing jello to a wall.

I won't say that blame is subjective- I will only say that I currently know of no such mechanism to objectively assign it.


Second point looks OK.

Third point:

Also, more accurate measures and heuristics can be designed if found to systematically suggest intuitively less 'moral' outcomes as being more 'moral' (or vice versa).

More accurate means should always be designed, no matter what- more information morally obligates us to improve the methodology, no matter how satisfied or dissatisfied we are with the current results.

It doesn't matter what we think of the results- if we adjusted it based on our satisfaction (as the text in red suggests) then it would be subjective.

The results are the results, whether we like them or not.

They can only become more accurate as we learn- not as we fine tune them to fit our preferences.

to suggest that this is always the case is an unfounded generalisation.

If one starts out with a belief which is contrary to science:

__________________________________________
         |   Apathy      |  Concern/investment     
_________|_______________|________________
         |               |
Hubris   |   Unchanged   |  Unchanged
_________|_______________|________________
         |               |
Humility |   Unchanged   |  Changed!
_________|_______________|________________

The three relevant dimensions I have identified are:

Having access to the information vs. No access (No information = no change)

Caring about it vs. Not caring (No motivation = no change)

Humility (Can accept being wrong) vs. Hubris (Closed mind = no change)


As far as blame assignment goes, I personally consider Apathy and Hubris to be more the fault of the individual, whereas I consider simply not having access to information to be a fault of the environment.

Apathy and Hubris can be equally environmental, and even due to ignorance, but the key point there is that I can not affect a reduction of ignorance while those stand as barriers, so those become the most pronounced qualities of individual interaction.


Anyway, as I said, this is not strictly relevant to the nature of Objective morality- interpretation of blame for an objective event can be considered objective or subjective without affecting the Objectivity of the event itself (e.g. even if there are other factors, that doesn't matter to the topic at hand).

However, comparing those possibilities is subjective, it is possible to objectify subjective data in numerous ways

As I said before, we seem to be using "Objective" and "Subjective" in entirely different ways.

You seem to be using Subjective in terms of uncertainty, approximation, even arbitrary or chaotic influence.

I'm speaking of Objective morality in terms of something that is not a matter of opinion.

I'm saying it is not subjective, in the sense of Subjective as a matter of opinion.


There is no way to make something which is Subjective (as an opinion) objective, except by expressing it in absolute terms of which person's opinion it is.

"Chocolate is delicious" is objectively incoherent, no matter how much you quantify the sweetness, bitterness, and aromatic compounds.

There is no "deliciousness" value for chocolate, because delicious is an opinion.

You can only calibrate a heuristic to determine the deliciousness of something relative to a person, or group of people.

Your misunderstanding of the third position- with regards to calibration- demonstrates that you are still viewing the premise as inherently a matter of opinion.


In order to understand my position on the heuristics, you must accept the premise that morality is objective for the sake of argument- it can NOT be calibrated based on people's opinions, because that would defeat the purpose entirely.


Morality can be Objective (meaning, not opinion), but its application also subject to approximation and chaos due to our limited knowledge- that doesn't invalidate it.

it requires that one establish criteria and benchmarks

The basic criteria are established directly be deductive logic, with no subjectivity involved.

All criteria are, in and of themselves, objective; however, their selection is not.

If you're talking about selecting, for example, between EQ and IQ, and how to weight them, I addressed this already.

The result may not be Objective (I the sense of without influence from bias), but it is not Subjective (opinion). It is still Objective (as in, a matter of fact rather than opinion).

The end result is both Objective and biased (the best ones being those which are the least biased).

A bias affecting experiment does not turn the results into opinions; it is imbued environmental error, which yields some degree of inaccuracy. We should seek to eliminate it as much as possible, but where we can not, it doesn't make the heuristic useless (just slightly less reliably accurate).

A formulator selecting EQ instead of IQ because he or she has a higher EQ does not make the Heuristic objectively useless. The Heuristic only becomes inaccurate to the extent that EQ is inaccurate.

Likewise, one selecting IQ instead of EQ doesn't make it useless- it just becomes inaccurate to the degree IQ is.

When we have more information to favor EQ or IQ, or better yet something else entirely, it will become clear who was more wrong in retrospect.

Even if I decided to add in factors like "Name begins with a C" and "extent of Russian Heritage" to the equation, it still might not become entirely useless; just more and more inaccurate.

Since those factors don't even correlate with cognitive ability, the equation would be pretty clearly the less accurate of the options.


As with Unified Field Theorem, there is a Correct equation- we just don't have enough information to figure it out yet.

Without perfect equations, our best efforts, as inaccurate and biased as they are, are still better than nothing.

If morality were some kind of "all or nothing" gig, any error would be the end of it. Christians usually make it out to be that way.

Instead, though, rational objective morality comes down to selecting the best Heuristic we can with the information we have available.

the selection criteria included within the design are largely either discretionary, or resulting from preestablished criteria (which then face the same subjective influence).

A subjective (opinion) influence such as "Chocolate is delicious", doesn't make the conclusions towards a goal subjective- it just might make the conclusions inaccurate.

I'll give an example:

The minister of agriculture of The Republic of Chocolandia really likes chocolate.

His goal in deciding who to give subsidies to is to stabilize and improve the national economy.

However, his bias in favor of chocolate influences subsidies massively, in a way that doesn't serve that goal as well as it might have been without him having had that bias.

His conclusion: The most effective way to improve our economy, is to divert all of the subsidies to Chocolate.

His conclusion is not an opinion. His conclusion is a statement of fact: The most effective X (this is an unknown objective quality). It is a very inaccurate fact (given ample error by his biases), but a fact none the less.


That with the least bias should be favored because it is the most accurate- because bias introduces error- it has nothing to do with inherited subjectivity (opinion). You can pour all of the bias in the world into the determination of a fact, and it's still a fact and not an opinion (Just probably a false fact).

However the assumption that objective goals or criteria can be identified is flawed, because while all criteria are objective, their selection is not.

I already identified an objective goal and presented a derivation.

You haven't really presented any argument against my derivation itself.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I have reordered my response in order to deal with the most pressing issues first:

Subjective and Objective
First up, I am using subjective and objective in the same fashion you have outlined that you are using them - the difference being that I acknowledge inhereted subjectivity (i.e. in your words 'a matter of opinion') and suggest it cannot be completely removed, only abstracted (where you seem to suggest it can be completely removed). For this reason something is always either objective or subjective (there is no middle ground as you suggested by "The result may not be Objective... but it is not Subjective"), only an absolute of objectivity (which, as you mentioned can indeed include things such as probability, (in)accuracy, and so forth, these are all objective characteristics as they are not a matter of opinion) as well as a gradated degree of subjectivity.

Spoiler: Objectifying the Subjective

There are ways to measure something which is subjective (for example, one very simple demonstration of this is one of those five point scales, I am sure you have seen, such as 'strongly like' 'like' 'neither like nor dislike' ' dislike' 'strongly dislike' being used to measure a subjective response using a standard based metric for quantification such as assigning a value of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively which becomes the basis for 'objectified' subjective data, it is true that it is not truly objective (for example, different people distinguish the difference between 'like' and 'strongly like' at different thresholds - this also allows for the data to be corrected for individual and group tendencies and so forth as you suggest)

I do not understand why you think I have misunderstood this, I even mentioned that there were technical arguments against my earlier position - none of which, including this, remove source subjectivity of design issues for the criteria selection and measurement (no this does not remove them, instead it displaces it by using a subjective process (or at least subjective criteria) by which to remove subjectivity from these measurements).... which means that while attempts can indeed be made to objectify things they remain 'as inherently a matter of opinion' - absolutely I do think that and that is no misunderstanding.

Most important disagreement:
I understand your position on heuristics; I do - I simply disagree with your express assumption that morality can be objective (not a matter of opinion); unlike maths or Unified Field Theory - I agree they are objective, since the opinions of those within that system do not alter let alone comprise its underlying characteristics (the same is not true for morality - even you have attempted to incorporate people's opinion on torture within your metric; intuitively people's opinions are an integral part of the composition of the characteristics of morality - thus because it incorporates opinions, morality is subjective).

All goals are objective, even all their derivitives are objective and they can even be analysed to determine their favourability according to different metrics, that does not mean that the determination or selection of the criteria and design of these metrics are objective (not a matter of opinion) because they were designed (From Dictionary.com Design - 3. to intend for a definite purpose - Purpose - 2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal) to achieve desired goals... desires are inescapably 'a matter of opinion'.

I also disagree with your implicit assumption that 'objective morality' (or is that moralities) can be identified (and objectively differentiated for the purpose of identifying a singular objective morality) using the method you have proposed and asserted to be objective. There is no way to differentiate between such metrics as being inherently more moral, except through discretion or through the development of another such heuristic (which once again, includes the inherited source subjectivity of design).

I do not suggest this makes them useless (or even of less use - they are of MORE use, because they fit the design - including the subjective elements therein) - only that the inheretence of subjective factors implies a degree of subjectivity and is therefore subjective - it may have been carefully attempted to remove such factors, however any alteration of design once again incorporates NEW subjective elements because design involves exercising opinion to effect the nature of the heuristic obtained.

I agree that such a system can deliver an inherently rational morality (I said as much in several of my posts); but never an objective one.

Then onto the Apathy/Hubris issue

Spoiler: Not nearly as important as the previous section for the discussion of objectivity, instead it is a bit off topic

Let us look at a couple of the comments you and I have made (I have not used the quote feature because it is using up too much space, hopefully it is clear enough without, if not please tell me and I will edit)

Me: "That would suggest that anyone who does not accept scientific knowledge, is immoral"
You: (response) "No, it's a matter of comparison; opportunity cost."

Me: "failure to achieve your objectives is not immoral,"
You: (response) No, it isn't. Unless you, out of hubris or apathy, rejected a superior method (science) and harmed people because you were too proud to use reason."

You: "People do not reject science for other reasons."

Let us paraphrase those sentences

Failing to achieve your objectives (if you have the opporunity) is not immoral, unless you, out of hubris or apathy, rejected science and harmed people because you were too proud to use science. People do not reject science for other reasons.

Becomes: Is this your position?
Position: Failing to select science where you have the opportunity to do so, is always because of hubris or apathy; therefore it is immoral because the outcomes are sub-optimal.

I am not arguing against the assertion that the outcomes are sub optimal, nor that the choice of a mechanism that would result in such sub-optimal outcomes is irrational; instead my reservations resolve around:
- > I do not deny that there are outcomes that are widely accepted as negative or undesirable (such as death for example); however I DO disagree with the assumption of objective morality (please don't repeat any criticism of my position or the argument I earlier used to justify that position in this section, instead make comment in above section, it is too annoying to attempt to continue to track down the various arguments made about the same issue in different sections)
- > The exclusion of all other potential reasons for action/inaction; that you have identified 'three relevant dimensions' does not mean that there are only three! Some of that aforementioned humility might be called for here in recognising that someone may have a reason for rejecting such a mechanism, a reason you may not have considered. Fear of change, Fear of uncertainty etc for example would be another factor; I am sure there are others but those are the ones that occurred to me off the top of my head.