Spot the fallacy?

[Reivax]

I was having a discussion the other day, and I was suggesting there is objectivity regarding things like the physical, observable world around us, but when it comes to morality and aesthetics, it is ultimately subjective. However I suggested that we can use reason and science to help us approximate moral decisions in a logical way, using the example that an non-theist does not rape a child because:

1. They have no motive to
2. They have empathy for the child (an evolutionary advantage for our population)
3. We have a fear of both social and legal retribution

The following argument was raised by them, and I can think of some reasons why it might be wrong, but I can't think of or find proper terminology to dissect the argument, so help would be appreciated.

Quote:

If there is no objective morality there is no obligation to use, trust or respect reason and science. To do so implies that reason is objectively valuable regardless of subjective opinion.

Is this at all fallacious, or is it a valid and sound argument? If not fallacious and valid and sound, where have I gone wrong?

Thank you in advance!

[Brian-M]

Quote:

If there is no objective morality there is no objective moral obligation to use, trust or respect reason and science. To do so implies that reason is objectively valuable regardless of subjective opinion or morality.

Fixed it. Just because someone doesn't believe in objective morality doesn't mean they can't have subjective moral reasons or objective non-moral reasons to "use, trust or respect reason and science".

Reason has a objective utilitarian value independent of morality.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Reivax

> If there is no objective morality
> there is no [universal moral] obligation to use, trust or respect reason and science.
> To do so implies that reason is objectively valuable
> regardless of subjective opinion.

Is this at all fallacious, or is it a valid and sound argument?

It is not fallacious, it is a perfectly valid opinion about life, universe, and everything. You either respect science and/or a known version of morality, or then you don't. Then we call you a sinner or a saint, depending on what values we respect.

We can define a morality that derives its norms from scientific facts, based on some predefined algorithms, but still people would choose to respect it or not.

[Orphia Nay]

"If there is no objective morality there is no obligation to use, trust or respect reason and science. To do so implies that reason is objectively valuable regardless of subjective opinion."

So they believe that science and reason are moral?

Either way, science and reason determine what's true (and beneficial to society, in this situation). Morals don't.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are both failing to properly distinguish between facts and moral opinions.

Reason has objective value because we can prove by experimentation that reason is great for successfully predicting how the universe will be and thus achieving the outcomes we want.

Moral opinions cannot be proven true or false by science. Science can inform a moral opinion by supplying facts that are relevant in your moral opinion, but it can't supply the prior moral opinion. Moral claims aren't true or false and aren't subject to scientific investigation, except to the extent that they contain embedded factual assumptions.

Any moral claim requires some unfounded moral assumption to get it off the ground. That's just how it is, and there's no getting around it. That applies to rationalists who want to be moral, and it applies to theists who want to be moral.

The sole advantage of morality based on reason is that it requires some kind of justification based on facts about the universe which apply to all beings equally, as opposed to morality based on religion which can be any bunch of malignant, arbitrary nonsense and usually is.

[Halfcentaur]

The issues are not connected.

While morality is subjective, accuracy is not subjective. Science is concerned with approximating accuracy. Whether or not you value what is approximately accurate is beside the point. Just because there's not a universal truth governing what you value or devote your attention to it does not mean you don't value or devote attention to things anyways.

So in a way it seems a non sequitur to me, am I wrong?

[Orphia Nay]

Yes, it seemed like a non-sequitur to me, too.

[HansMustermann]

While it's a non-sequitur or possibly a red herring (it did manage to derail that talk, didn't it), I think a further problem there is with the fuzziness of the words.

For a start, while obligations can be religious or objective, there are also social obligations, contractual obligations, legal obligations, etc. For example try missing enough mortgage payments and see if anyone buys "but there is no 'thou shalt pay thy mortgage' commandment in the bible" gets you.

So basically the underlying premise that, basically, "without religion to tell you to do X, you'd have no obligation to to X", is false. You may not have an objective obligation, or even moral obligation, but as a society we've always managed to come up with whatever obligations we needed to impose on each other. Including those in religion. They're still given by people, after all.

Second, while there may not be a formal obligation, we still expect people to do what works and not do what's stupidly wrong.

We may not throw people in jail if they thought that trying to hammer a nail with their fist is a good idea. And there certainly is no 'thou shalt use a proper hammer to drive nails, for whosoever hammers nails with his fist is wicked in my sight' in the bible. Right? But nevertheless we'd think someone frikken stupid if they broke their hand doing so.

Knowledge too. There is no objective obligation to acknowledge that the Earth isn't flat and resting on four pillars, or that the sky isn't a solid dome. And Jesus never said that the Earth is round and surrounded by space either. But we'd still laugh at anyone who insists that no, he knows it's flat because if it were round then people on the other side would be upside down which is absurd. (Lactantius for example argued EXACTLY that, and he was the mentor of Constantine.)

Also, there is no objective obligation to stop believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy when you grow up. And Jesus definitely didn't forbid either. I mean, the lunatic CHRISTIAN fringe who is against celebrating Christmas with gifts and such instead of just mindlessly bleating in Church, would LOVE to have that kind of ammo, but they don't. Yet if an adult came and complained in all earnest that Santa didn't bring them gifts, or that after having to get an abscessed tooth extracted they put it under their pillow and that frikken fairy never came to replace it with a dollar, well, let's just say there's a reason why it's a comedy trope.

Etc.

So basically, yes, nobody has any objective obligation to use sound logic or apply the only method that works for obtaining reliable information. But there are very good reasons to do what works instead of what doesn't, and an expectation to behave like an intelligent adult. Mind you, they're not going to hell or prison if they don't, so technically it's not an obligation. But if they insist on acting like the village idiot instead, they shouldn't be surprised if we think they ARE idiots and treat them accordingly.

What's more interesting, though, is that it's not even working as an appeal to consequences, because, you know, what's the difference? I mean, so if you ditch religion, you have nobody to tell you to value science or reason. Unlike if you look to religion to give you an obligation... and you don't get one from there either. So the problem with ditching religion is...?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

The issues are not connected.

While morality is subjective, accuracy is not subjective. Science is concerned with approximating accuracy. Whether or not you value what is approximately accurate is beside the point. Just because there's not a universal truth governing what you value or devote your attention to it does not mean you don't value or devote attention to things anyways.

So in a way it seems a non sequitur to me, am I wrong?

This. I've tried to articulate my thoughts on this before but failed; this works nicely.

[JoeBentley]

Morals are objective statements. They are objective statements about the well being of conscious creatures.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Morals are objective statements. They are objective statements about the well being of conscious creatures.

No.

It is easy to demonstrate that this claim is false.

A says "Theft is immoral because, objectively speaking, it reduces the wellbeing of a conscious creature".

B says "What scientific facts back up the claim that it is immoral? We agree it reduces wellbeing, but how do you get from that to the conclusion that it is immoral?".

All A can say is "It's my opinion that it is so". There are no scientific facts A can appeal to in order to get out of this hole.

You'll find if you try that you'll be endlessly chasing your tail, because whatever scientific facts you cite B can just keep saying "I agree with your factual claim, but I don't see how it follows scientifically that it's immoral".

The only way to have a meaningful conversation about morals is to start with some agreement about moral opinions. If you start out by agreeing "We both agree that reducing the wellbeing of conscious creatures is immoral" then you can have a sensible conversation.

[JoeBentley]

Asking someone to objectively prove suffering is bad is like asking someone to objectively prove reality is real. It's the ethical equivilent of solipsism and just as useless.

There's a reasonable bedrock to start any discussion on and "Suffering is Bad" is a reasonable one.

[Beerina]

My pain and suffering is bad. From that I can reason to behaviors that minimize this (I hope.)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Asking someone to objectively prove suffering is bad is like asking someone to objectively prove reality is real. It's the ethical equivilent of solipsism and just as useless.

This is just a way of boosting your preferred moral assumption and discounting other people's moral assumptions. It has no scientific merit.

What if I think suffering purifies us for our next life? What if I think suffering is God's way of testing us so we can get into heaven? What if I think that you need to suffer to have empathy with other people's suffering? What if I think that suffering is an illusion which we need to transcend in order to be truly rational, and that we can only transcend it by experiencing it? What if I think that what's morally important is to be badass, and you can only become badass through being forced to do hard training? What if I think that my suffering is bad but your suffering is awesome? What if I think that my suffering is bad and that of my fellow people is bad, but that suffering of animals is meaningless? What if I think that nothing really important can be achieved without suffering and that without suffering to achieve it no achievement has meaning?

Whether or not I believe any of those things, you can't prove them wrong with science.

Quote:

There's a reasonable bedrock to start any discussion on and "Suffering is Bad" is a reasonable one.

It's a great one, because lots and lots of people will accept it.

It's utterly useless as a way of starting a conversation with someone who doesn't accept it though.

[JoeBentley]

And much the same way our understanding of the universe is never going to advance if solipsistic idiots insist we can't go any further until we prove we aren't all brains in jars, our understanding of how to alleviate the suffering of conscious creatures will never go anywhere if we have to sit down and explain why suffering is bad.

You're not wrong in saying the limitations of such an assumption exist. I'm just saying without accepting this base agreement all we can do is mentally masturbate, we can't really approach the problem in anything approaching a real world mindset.

So if we're talking morality I think I can safely start at "Suffering is bad" without explaining how I got there. Yeah some people will argue that point (almost completely always for self serving reasons) but screw 'em. I can't argue down to the lowest common denominator all the time.

And if we accept "Suffering is bad" then morality becomes purely objective, reduce that suffering.

So I don't disagree with any particular point you are making, you are essentially correct, but either we start here or we go nowhere.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Beerina

My pain and suffering is bad. From that I can reason to behaviors that minimize this (I hope.)

It is the basis for the fundamental moral axiom: do not do to others what you would not wish them to do to you. Other moral precepts flow from this, and it requires no divine authority, only observation of two simple phenomena:

1 certain things hurt me
2 other people resemble me.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is indeed an 'objective morality'. What leads people astray here is looking for this objective morality outside the individual brain and applying the false underlying premise that there has to be an absolute morality in order for there to be an objective morality.

Hunger and pain are just as subjective as one's sense of right and wrong. But people have an easier time recognizing the objective components of the sensation and interpretation of hunger and pain signals (the neurophysiology of both). What people have a harder time conceptualizing are the objective components of some of our emotional sensations. How can they be the same as a physical sensation? But they are. They're just brain processes.

So addressing the OP question, a "non-theist does not rape a child because:", the answer is because we have an innate sense of right and wrong, the product of both nature and nurture and existing within our brains. And for some individuals that innate sense of right and wrong is abnormal and some defect causes the individual to not have the same sense of morality as the majority of human beings.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So addressing the OP question, a "non-theist does not rape a child because:", the answer is because we have an innate sense of right and wrong, the product of both nature and nurture and existing within our brains. And for some individuals that innate sense of right and wrong is abnormal and some defect causes the individual to not have the same sense of morality as the majority of human beings.

I agree with that. To look at it another way, religions wouldn't be so popular if we didn't have an innate sense of right and wrong, which they personify and codify. Having a sense of right and wrong obviously make us more fit to survive as a species, so that's what the majority of us have.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And much the same way our understanding of the universe is never going to advance if solipsistic idiots insist we can't go any further until we prove we aren't all brains in jars, our understanding of how to alleviate the suffering of conscious creatures will never go anywhere if we have to sit down and explain why suffering is bad.

You realise that this is just the appeal to consequences, a canonical fallacy, right? Something is not objectively true just because it's convenient to assume it.

Quote:

You're not wrong in saying the limitations of such an assumption exist. I'm just saying without accepting this base agreement all we can do is mentally masturbate, we can't really approach the problem in anything approaching a real world mindset.

What you aren't accepting here is that the assumption you personally like is not the only possible starting assumption, nor have you even proved it's the best. You keep using derogatory language to accuse anyone who doesn't accept your preferred starting assumption of "mentally masturbating", but that's not an argument, it's just verbal abuse.

Quote:

So if we're talking morality I think I can safely start at "Suffering is bad" without explaining how I got there. Yeah some people will argue that point (almost completely always for self serving reasons) but screw 'em. I can't argue down to the lowest common denominator all the time.

You obviously think that your starting assumption is "higher" or "better" or something than any other possible starting assumption. Why? Is it on the basis of scientific evidence? Or have you just pulled it out of your nether regions and anointed it The One Eternal Truth, the one starting assumption which is not mental masturbation?

Quote:

And if we accept "Suffering is bad" then morality becomes purely objective, reduce that suffering.

Reduce it by any means possible, or are some means off the table? Reduce it for all equally, or reduce it in accordance with what people deserve as individuals, or reduce it in whatever way maximises the reduction?

Quote:

So I don't disagree with any particular point you are making, you are essentially correct, but either we start here or we go nowhere.

What evidence or reasoning do you have to show that these are the only two options? You could be presenting a false dichotomy here. How do you know you are not?

[JoeBentley]

My point is simply that any discussion of morality almost without fail will lead to a rousing game of "And then?"; a game I have no desire to play again.

If you wish to discuss the root causes of why humans act in a moral manner I will do so, I just will not get drawn a rousing game of 20 Questions with Woo as the only acceptable answer.

So here we go. Like all higher apes human are social creatures that function best within a social structure. We psychologically need interaction with other humans. So for humans to function we need to be able to interact with other humans while still having our more base needs met.

So if another humans kills you or steals your food or kicks you out of your nest for the night into the cold and rain, you suffer and the group is less efficient. So the groups of humans that developed some sense of basic proto-rights were more successful, breed, and spread out more. As time went on and these groups actually started to develop into towns, cities, civilizations, empires, etc, these basic proto-rights became clarified and codified into rules and laws.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

My point is simply that any discussion of morality almost without fail will lead to a rousing game of "And then?"; a game I have no desire to play again.

If you wish to discuss the root causes of why humans act in a moral manner I will do so, I just will not get drawn a rousing game of 20 Questions with Woo as the only acceptable answer.

Who said anything about woo? Also, how does any of the rest of the stuff you posted relate to anything we've previously discussed?

Quote:

So here we go. Like all higher apes human are social creatures that function best within a social structure. We psychologically need interaction with other humans. So for humans to function we need to be able to interact with other humans while still having our more base needs met.

So if another humans kills you or steals your food or kicks you out of your nest for the night into the cold and rain, you suffer and the group is less efficient. So the groups of humans that developed some sense of basic proto-rights were more successful, breed, and spread out more. As time went on and these groups actually started to develop into towns, cities, civilizations, empires, etc, these basic proto-rights became clarified and codified into rules and laws.

We were talking about why you think the starting assumption that suffering is bad is the One True Starting Assumption, and everything else is mental masturbation. I don't see the link between what you're posting now and what we were talking about before. (I'm not even going to bother addressing the question of whether your story bears any resemblance to actual history, and whether it has cause and effect in the right order, because those issues are irrelevant).

[jadey]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

"If there is no objective morality there is no obligation to use, trust or respect reason and science. To do so implies that reason is objectively valuable regardless of subjective opinion."

So they believe that science and reason are moral?

Either way, science and reason determine what's true (and beneficial to society, in this situation). Morals don't.

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

The issues are not connected.

While morality is subjective, accuracy is not subjective. Science is concerned with approximating accuracy. Whether or not you value what is approximately accurate is beside the point. Just because there's not a universal truth governing what you value or devote your attention to it does not mean you don't value or devote attention to things anyways.

So in a way it seems a non sequitur to me, am I wrong?

I agree that the two are not connected. Science and reason are predictive tools. Science and reason seem to be useful regardless of your value system.

I was contemplating a scenario where a single person is stranded on a deserted island with only flaura and fauna available (just trying to dodge animal issues). I'm not sure what morality could even apply to her. If she values survival, she'll probably employ science and reason to achieve that. If at some point she no longer values survival, she'd probably use science and reason to end it.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

My point is simply that any discussion of morality almost without fail will lead to a rousing game of "And then?"; a game I have no desire to play again.

If you wish to discuss the root causes of why humans act in a moral manner I will do so, I just will not get drawn a rousing game of 20 Questions with Woo as the only acceptable answer.

So here we go. Like all higher apes human are social creatures that function best within a social structure. We psychologically need interaction with other humans. So for humans to function we need to be able to interact with other humans while still having our more base needs met.

So if another humans kills you or steals your food or kicks you out of your nest for the night into the cold and rain, you suffer and the group is less efficient. So the groups of humans that developed some sense of basic proto-rights were more successful, breed, and spread out more. As time went on and these groups actually started to develop into towns, cities, civilizations, empires, etc, these basic proto-rights became clarified and codified into rules and laws.

I think that pretty much nails it, and it does explain why one can start with a premise that suffering is bad. It's because that's what we're bred to think, when we think about morality.

We want to stop our own mental suffering of negative emotions like guilt, anger at injustice, etc., and we can do so by behaving in ways that we've defined as "moral" and forcing others to do the same. But it's circular, because what we call moral is, by definition, the behavior that stops us from suffering guilt, anger at injustice, etc.

Morality is just the name we give to the process in our brains that punishes us when we do something "wrong" with guilt, regret, depression, anger, etc. and makes us feel good when we do something "right," with wrong and right defined as behavior that's been successful for our species over time.

If there's suffering, and one wants to talk about what we call morality, one needs to start with the premise that suffering is bad. But one needs to expand the definition of suffering to mental as well as physical, and include the things we call guilt, remorse, righteous indignation, etc.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Who said anything about woo? Also, how does any of the rest of the stuff you posted relate to anything we've previously discussed?

He's replying to how these threads always go, with the same arguments being trotted out and the big question that is NEVER answered by the 'morality is special' crowd. From a thread where the same subject is currently being discussed:

Originally Posted by Joe

This entire thread has been about you claiming there is some sort of "beyond science" part of the decision that is implied to be both valid and useful.

So what is it that is beyond science but not woo?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Pup

I think that pretty much nails it, and it does explain why one can start with a premise that suffering is bad. It's because that's what we're bred to think, when we think about morality.

[Nitpick] I do believe "bred" and "evolved" have different connotations. [/nitpick] Of course with a name like, Pup ....

Carry on....

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

[Nitpick] I do believe "bred" and "evolved" have different connotations. [/nitpick] Of course with a name like, Pup ....

Carry on....

Okay, so "bred" implies artificial selection, "evolved" implies natural selection...

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

We were talking about why you think the starting assumption that suffering is bad is the One True Starting Assumption...

Here's why. Because my basis for objectivity is observing humans. Morality consists of principles about human relationships and arguments between humans. If I poll humans so that the ones I am talking to do have the belief that suffering is wrong, then the conversation moves forward from there. I have objectively determined that this starting point works.

It doesn't have to work in all cases for all times, it only has to work for the subset of humans I am communicating with or talking about. Failing that, I should objectively determine another place of common agreement and work from there.

This is not much different that outlining the axioms used in mathematics before you start your proof. There are multiple possibilities and one type of math my operate in one realm and another type not. The objective part is seeing what the axioms are, not claiming these to be the only possible starting place.

In this framing, scientific morality would consist of observing the people in question and using this as an objective basis to move forward.

This is actually done quiet a bit on the forums when God talk comes up. Skeptics assume the God in question is accepted by the person making the claim and then use logic to show inconsistencies in the description. This couldn't work if scientific methods weren't useful in deciding the consistency or applicability of morals. It also generates a set of moral principles based on what the believer outlines.

The objection that science cannot generate morals is of the type that science cannot generate physical laws, but only discover existing ones. Science can propose alternate laws and outline how they might work (the "if things were different" exercise), but to see if they actually apply, we have to go look. Science can generate moral laws the same way people do it, but that doesn't mean those laws will be convincing to actual humans.

Here's a start. Time flows because of entropy.

I don't recognize that as a moral precept, but that's only because I already have ideas about what morality should look like. To make it relevant to me, you'd have to find out something about how I look at the world and how I perceive good and evil. Should I happen to think entropy is evil, we can get started.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

He's replying to how these threads always go, with the same arguments being trotted out and the big question that is NEVER answered by the 'morality is special' crowd. From a thread where the same subject is currently being discussed: So what is it that is beyond science but not woo?

"Beyond" is a woo-word. Ethics isn't "beyond" science. However it's still true that you can't do ethics with science alone.

The "big question that is NEVER answered by the 'morality is special' crowd" isn't answerable. That's the whole point. Really there is no "'morality is special' crowd", there's just the "morality requires an assumption of moral value which cannot be supported scientifically" crowd.

As skeptics you'd think we'd be better about realising when a question can't be answered. However being human lots of people who think of themselves as skeptics can't handle uncertainty and cling to any excuse for certainty.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by marplots

Here's why. Because my basis for objectivity is observing humans. Morality consists of principles about human relationships and arguments between humans. If I poll humans so that the ones I am talking to do have the belief that suffering is wrong, then the conversation moves forward from there. I have objectively determined that this starting point works.

It doesn't have to work in all cases for all times, it only has to work for the subset of humans I am communicating with or talking about. Failing that, I should objectively determine another place of common agreement and work from there.

This is moral relativism, and it's objectively true that it works as way to start a discussion. It doesn't prove anything about what's morally right through. You can still start a discussion even if everyone who answers your poll says "What is right is being subservient to the Will of God, and that mostly means genocide and rape".

Quote:

This is not much different that outlining the axioms used in mathematics before you start your proof. There are multiple possibilities and one type of math my operate in one realm and another type not. The objective part is seeing what the axioms are, not claiming these to be the only possible starting place.

In this framing, scientific morality would consist of observing the people in question and using this as an objective basis to move forward.

That's not objective, merely popular. Endorsing popular moral ideas may be objectively effective but it doesn't make the morality you are endorsing any less subjective.

Quote:

This is actually done quiet a bit on the forums when God talk comes up. Skeptics assume the God in question is accepted by the person making the claim and then use logic to show inconsistencies in the description. This couldn't work if scientific methods weren't useful in deciding the consistency or applicability of morals. It also generates a set of moral principles based on what the believer outlines.

I think you're muddling science and logic here. They too are two different things. What you are describing is not "the scientific method", unless you're going to try to cram absolutely all of reason and philosophy into that box.

Quote:

The objection that science cannot generate morals is of the type that science cannot generate physical laws, but only discover existing ones. Science can propose alternate laws and outline how they might work (the "if things were different" exercise), but to see if they actually apply, we have to go look. Science can generate moral laws the same way people do it, but that doesn't mean those laws will be convincing to actual humans.

Finding out what people think is not the same thing as finding out objective truth, unless you think people have the magical faculty to discern moral truth directly.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Finding out what people think is not the same thing as finding out objective truth, unless you think people have the magical faculty to discern moral truth directly.

It is though. You are objectively finding out what people think, aren't you? That's objective, it's true. How is "moral truth" anything other than a statement about what people think? What, I wonder, would be the moral truth for dolphins?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

"Beyond" is a woo-word. Ethics isn't "beyond" science. However it's still true that you can't do ethics with science alone.

Not all of us perceive the Universe exactly this way and you claiming this 'fact' does not make it true.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The "big question that is NEVER answered by the 'morality is special' crowd" isn't answerable. That's the whole point. Really there is no "'morality is special' crowd", there's just the "morality requires an assumption of moral value which cannot be supported scientifically" crowd.

As skeptics you'd think we'd be better about realising when a question can't be answered. However being human lots of people who think of themselves as skeptics can't handle uncertainty and cling to any excuse for certainty.

Absolute morality outside the individual brain does not exist. "An assumption of moral value which cannot be supported scientifically" wouldn't technically exist, but we make moral judgements all the time. So how do you explain morality if it cannot be supported scientifically? Is it magic? Is it woo? You claim it is not scientifically supportable so what is it?

Morality does indeed exist. It exists as a function of the animal brain. No magic, no woo and most definitely a 'real' thing.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by marplots

It is though. You are objectively finding out what people think, aren't you? That's objective, it's true

Sure. If Joe Smith thinks that morality is burying the bodies of the prostitutes her murders under a flower bed, it's objectively true that Joe Smith thinks that.

Quote:

How is "moral truth" anything other than a statement about what people think?

That's a question you have to answer, if you ever want to be able to say something like "your view about what is moral is wrong". If there is nothing more to morality than whatever people think, then Joe Smith is exactly as moral as Florence Nightingale, because both are doing what they think is right.

If you want to be able to say "Joe Smith was wrong in an important way, and Florence Nightingale was right in an important way" then you need some story about how people's moral opinions can be wrong.

Making it a popularity contest doesn't work, or else genocide and rape and whatever else you like becomes moral as soon as a lot of people think it does.

If you don't think there's any moral reason to judge Joe Smith more harshly than Florence Nightingale then indeed there is no problem.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not all of us perceive the Universe exactly this way and you claiming this 'fact' does not make it true.

It's not true because I claim it, it is true because it's logically true. No strictly factual claim can logically entail a moral claim. Or at least nobody has ever managed to figure out a way it could in hundreds of years of trying.

Quote:

Absolute morality outside the individual brain does not exist. "An assumption of moral value which cannot be supported scientifically" wouldn't technically exist, but we make moral judgements all the time. So how do you explain morality if it cannot be supported scientifically? Is it magic? Is it woo? You claim it is not scientifically supportable so what is it?

It's a value judgment, akin to value judgments like "Half-Life is better than Daikatana" or "mushrooms are better than tofu" in that it's true for some people as they perceive the world, but it's not a scientific fact, nor magic, nor woo.

Quote:

Morality does indeed exist. It exists as a function of the animal brain. No magic, no woo and most definitely a 'real' thing.

You need to be more precise with your use of language.

Moral opinions do indeed exist. They exist as functions of the animal brain. No magic, no woo and most definitely a 'real' thing.

However is every moral opinion as good as every other moral opinion? If so, Joe Smith who buries prostitutes in his flower garden is just as moral as a philanthropist. If you reject that conclusion, you must think some moral opinions are better than other moral opinions. You must think that some moral opinions are wrong, in some sense.

That requires some kind of arbitrary moral value claim to get the process started. There's simply no getting around it. However nobody has yet come up with the perfect starting assumption, which satisfies everybody.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Sure. If Joe Smith thinks that morality is burying the bodies of the prostitutes her murders under a flower bed, it's objectively true that Joe Smith thinks that.

Yes. And why is that objectively true? It's because moral thinking is an innate animal emotion.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

That's a question you have to answer, if you ever want to be able to say something like "your view about what is moral is wrong". If there is nothing more to morality than whatever people think, then Joe Smith is exactly as moral as Florence Nightingale, because both are doing what they think is right.

You blew it at the first "if", and you offered a false dichotomy after that. Either that or you have a complete misunderstanding of what moral thinking actually is. I suspect from your comments we don't perceive morality the same.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If you want to be able to say "Joe Smith was wrong in an important way, and Florence Nightingale was right in an important way" then you need some story about how people's moral opinions can be wrong.

You're stuck in the false dichotomy of, 'morals must exist in some absolute way or they don't have any meaning', paradigm

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Making it a popularity contest doesn't work, or else genocide and rape and whatever else you like becomes moral as soon as a lot of people think it does.

If you don't think there's any moral reason to judge Joe Smith more harshly than Florence Nightingale then indeed there is no problem.

More false dichotomy, for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

It's not true because I claim it, it is true because it's logically true. No strictly factual claim can logically entail a moral claim. Or at least nobody has ever managed to figure out a way it could in hundreds of years of trying.

So you declare. But for me, my reality is quite different. And I'm also being logical.

[snipped a lot of repetitive arguments]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Moral opinions do indeed exist. They exist as functions of the animal brain. No magic, no woo and most definitely a 'real' thing.

However is every moral opinion as good as every other moral opinion?

Why is this the only option?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If so, Joe Smith who buries prostitutes in his flower garden is just as moral as a philanthropist. If you reject that conclusion, you must think some moral opinions are better than other moral opinions. You must think that some moral opinions are wrong, in some sense.

That requires some kind of arbitrary moral value claim to get the process started. There's simply no getting around it. However nobody has yet come up with the perfect starting assumption, which satisfies everybody.

This is all straw/false dichotomy stuff.


Your arguments are all based in the morality is 'special' paradigm even if you don't see it that way.

Take any other human sensation or emotion and apply the same arguments as you are applying here and ask yourself why the arguments don't make the same sense. I'll take just the first wording of your argument:

"That's a question you have to answer, if you ever want to be able to say something like "your view about what [makes a person sad] is wrong". If there is nothing more to [sadness] than whatever people think, then Joe Smith is exactly as [sad] as Florence Nightingale, because both are [reacting to] what [makes them sad]."

Or how about, "That's a question you have to answer, if you ever want to be able to say something like "your view about what [hunger feels like] is wrong". If there is nothing more to [hunger] than whatever people think, then Joe Smith is exactly as [hungry] as Florence Nightingale, because both are [experiencing] what [they believe is the sensation of hunger]."

Why do the arguments sound differently when you substitute other sensations that are experienced in the brain?

[Brian-M]

You could define morality as following general codes of conduct that tend to beneficial to the community. It would then be objectively verifiable whether or not communities whose members follow these codes, such as not stealing or murdering, are more successful than communities whose members do not follow these codes.

This could be the basis for an objective morality, general codes of conduct that are demonstrably beneficial to the community.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Sure. If Joe Smith thinks that morality is burying the bodies of the prostitutes her murders under a flower bed, it's objectively true that Joe Smith thinks that.

Certainly. And we have lots of examples where people have done such things and continue to do so. One that makes the news often is the moral act of blowing yourself up and killing others in the service of a perceived good.

Quote:

Marplots asked: "How is "moral truth" anything other than a statement about what people think? "

Quote:

That's a question you have to answer, if you ever want to be able to say something like "your view about what is moral is wrong". If there is nothing more to morality than whatever people think, then Joe Smith is exactly as moral as Florence Nightingale, because both are doing what they think is right.

Again correct. I have no basis to say "right" or "wrong" other than my own moral sense. How could it be otherwise? When I say, "Your view about what is moral is wrong" is a statement about my views, not some other meaning of morality that exists apart from human beings. This is why humans are considered moral agents and animals are not -- morality is a human attribute.

Quote:

If you want to be able to say "Joe Smith was wrong in an important way, and Florence Nightingale was right in an important way" then you need some story about how people's moral opinions can be wrong.

What is actually happening isn't a showing of morality. What is happening is a process where I try to shape your ideas to fit mine. You will either agree and we both think that X is "wrong," or you disagree. If you disagree, I will try to convince you by drawing analogies to things I think you will agree with. We may come to agreement or not. There is nothing outside of this process that could ever have more authority than our discussion of the issues.

Quote:

Making it a popularity contest doesn't work, or else genocide and rape and whatever else you like becomes moral as soon as a lot of people think it does.

It is the only thing that does work. You are playing a trick by saying that genocide and rape become moral, because what actually happens is that those words are not used and the act is redefined by the populist understanding so that it isn't rape and it isn't genocide. Those words are defined by their usage, not the other way round -- the act defined by the words.

There are many examples of this, where some action is labeled by one side as "genocide" and by the other as "killing terrorists." The political sphere is rife with other examples -- the popular, "That's socialist" attempts to shape the word to fit the act with the idea of making an analogy to an agreed upon evil.

Quote:

If you don't think there's any moral reason to judge Joe Smith more harshly than Florence Nightingale then indeed there is no problem.

But the fact is that we do so. Morality is a property of humans. If the majority of us agree that sugar is sweet, what other standard outside of our group consensus do we need to appeal to? You used the example of Joe Smith and Florence Nightingale precisely because you have an expectation that it would resonate with me and make your point. This is the basis we should focus on, where there is agreement and the broader, the better.

Even if there is such a thing as objective morality, you would still have the same measuring instrument -- human beings, how they react, act and what they say.

The mere fact of differing moral tenets over time tells you that either human beings have changed the way they measure such things, or that morality itself springs from human beings and changes just as cultures change. I propose that my ancestors were no less able to make moral judgements than I am and no less skilled. The fact that the results are different is simply a difference in what I construct, not what I recognize.

If morality were truly objective, how would you explain the changes over time?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So you declare. But for me, my reality is quite different. And I'm also being logical.

You're not, actually. You're a person who thinks they are being logical who doesn't understand what is referred to in analytic philosophy as the fact/value distinction. "Logical", you see, is objectively definable to a much greater extent than "moral".

Quote:

Take any other human sensation or emotion and apply the same arguments as you are applying here and ask yourself why the arguments don't make the same sense. I'll take just the first wording of your argument:

"That's a question you have to answer, if you ever want to be able to say something like "your view about what [makes a person sad] is wrong". If there is nothing more to [sadness] than whatever people think, then Joe Smith is exactly as [sad] as Florence Nightingale, because both are [reacting to] what [makes them sad]."

[...]

Why do the arguments sound differently when you substitute other sensations that are experienced in the brain?

They sound differently because almost everyone accepts that there is nothing more or less to the question "is Joe Smith sad?" than whether or not Joe Smith feels sad.

However a lot of people have the idea that there is something more to the question "should women have the right to vote and own property?" than whether or not someone thinks so. A lot of people have the idea that women really should be able to vote and own property, and that this is true regardless of whether or not some people think otherwise.

For people who don't think that way then the language of morality really isn't a good fit for the ideas they want to express. Rather than saying "rape is immoral" they would express themselves more clearly by saying something like "I don't like the idea of raping or being raped but, you know, that's just my opinion, if you disagree then you are no more right or wrong than I am".

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by marplots

But the fact is that we do so. Morality is a property of humans. If the majority of us agree that sugar is sweet, what other standard outside of our group consensus do we need to appeal to?

That's not a very good analogy, because everyone agrees sugar is sweet. However historically, to pick one example, people were completely divided in the past over whether slavery was good or bad.

Quote:

If morality were truly objective, how would you explain the changes over time?

I think you are confused if you think that I have been arguing that morality is "truly objective".

What I've been arguing is that it's inconsistent to think that morality is purely subjective (the position that morality is whatever we think it is) and simultaneously think anyone else's moral position is wrong.

You can either have the moral relativist cake and have morality be just whatever the individual thinks it is, or you can have the moral objectivist cake and consistently say things like "rape is wrong whatever you think" or "slavery is wrong whatever you think". You can't have both cakes. Anyone trying to say "of course they're both right!" is just confused.

A second point is that if you want the objectivist cake, you need some arbitrary moral assumption(s) to get your moral opinion-making off the ground, and science can't help you with that.

Where we run into trouble is with people who think of themselves as rationalist, science-based skeptics and who think everything that isn't Science is Woo-Woo, and so they tie themselves into huge knots trying to get around the fact/value distinction without appealing to anything they don't see as Science. It simply can't be done, so inevitably they end up trying to smuggle in some subjective value judgment as Science and then try to talk very fast and loud to cover it up.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

You could define morality as following general codes of conduct that tend to beneficial to the community. It would then be objectively verifiable whether or not communities whose members follow these codes, such as not stealing or murdering, are more successful than communities whose members do not follow these codes.

This could be the basis for an objective morality, general codes of conduct that are demonstrably beneficial to the community.

This would be good, but there are problems with it. The first is that the codes themselves are defined by the community, so that "stealing" in one community is defined as a different behavior in another. In other words, the meaning changes and can't be used like you'd use the word 'inch', since you have a physical standard for length that exists outside of culture (some fraction of a wavelength of something).

It is also tough to pin down what beneficial is supposed to mean. I would need to see a stronger evolutionary analogy. For example, what would be the equivalent of extinction and at what level would it operate for morality (individual or larger group)? How would it be transferred and with what fidelity? Is mutation allowed?

This has been tested in a sense with games between computer programs. Using that as a basis, the best strategy was to act positively (with trust) until someone did you wrong and then act negatively (distrust) from then on toward that person. However, even in these types of trials, there was incentive to act otherwise for individual benefit, depending on the number and type of interaction (if enough suckers are born every minute to avoid history interfering, you can be a taker all the time without penalty).

So, it all seems much too fluid to marry up well with evolution. I may, for example, change my stance on some moral issue over time. Am I able to transmit, in Lamarckian fashion, that change to my offspring or others?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think you are confused if you think that I have been arguing that morality is "truly objective".

What I've been arguing is that it's inconsistent to think that morality is purely subjective (the position that morality is whatever we think it is) and simultaneously think anyone else's moral position is wrong.

You can either have the moral relativist cake and have morality be just whatever the individual thinks it is, or you can have the moral objectivist cake and consistently say things like "rape is wrong whatever you think" or "slavery is wrong whatever you think". You can't have both cakes. Anyone trying to say "of course they're both right!" is just confused.

Ah, but this is a mistake on your part. I can certainly say something is right or wrong and insist it is so. Why? Because my sense of morality exists within me. I experience it. I own it. If I wish to be authentic, I cannot say that I think that X is only "wrong for me," even if it is. Why? Because I only have access to me. How do I ever know you aren't lying when you claim to believe otherwise?

What I can say is that my moral judgements are specific to me and recognize that others may have different opinions. When you then say, "But you are insisting on an objective standard!" I am not. No more so than when I tell you that beets taste bad. I know other people like them and eat them. This doesn't change my experience, nor am I appealing to some objective standard about beets. I am expressing my own sense of what I experience. How could I do otherwise? Could I absolutely hate the taste of beets and then declare them tasty because I read that somewhere?

Quote:

A second point is that if you want the objectivist cake, you need some arbitrary moral assumption(s) to get your moral opinion-making off the ground, and science can't help you with that.

Again, I disagree. You can use any objective standard you like. I think the problem is that this doesn't lead to a moral code that makes sense to you. For example, I could say that the length of an inch (as set by physics) determines the "good" of something. The longer it is, the more good it is. The shorter it is, the less good it is. My moral principle then follows, "Choose always those actions which lead to the longest result." You can do an objective, scientific test to find out.

Where it seems to fail is when you demand that the morality generated matches up with your personal preferences. It does not. But why should it in a realm of moral relativism? In the vast pool of possibilities, what are the chances that some one-off objective standard will fit my own sense of what is moral?

Quote:

Where we run into trouble is with people who think of themselves as rationalist, science-based skeptics and who think everything that isn't Science is Woo-Woo, and so they tie themselves into huge knots trying to get around the fact/value distinction without appealing to anything they don't see as Science. It simply can't be done, so inevitably they end up trying to smuggle in some subjective value judgment as Science and then try to talk very fast and loud to cover it up.

I'm at least partially captured in that description.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

My point is simply that any discussion of morality almost without fail will lead to a rousing game of "And then?"; a game I have no desire to play again.

If you wish to discuss the root causes of why humans act in a moral manner I will do so, I just will not get drawn a rousing game of 20 Questions with Woo as the only acceptable answer.

So here we go. Like all higher apes human are social creatures that function best within a social structure. We psychologically need interaction with other humans. So for humans to function we need to be able to interact with other humans while still having our more base needs met.

So if another humans kills you or steals your food or kicks you out of your nest for the night into the cold and rain, you suffer and the group is less efficient. So the groups of humans that developed some sense of basic proto-rights were more successful, breed, and spread out more. As time went on and these groups actually started to develop into towns, cities, civilizations, empires, etc, these basic proto-rights became clarified and codified into rules and laws.

Actually, (and this is way oversimplified because I am not going to synthesize multiple books/authors): farming communities got established, other groups (generally one, but) raided them. Eventually the raiders got smarter and let the farmers grow enough for selves and the raiders, raiders formed cities/ still "taxed " the farmers for protection and to continue food supply without doing the work. This grew to civilization/trade/ law -mostly to preserve the city, then state against uprisings by the downtrodden farmers and those related to the agricultural system as well as outside raiders.........