Border crises

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:42 pm

commonsense wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:08 pm
commonsense wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:23 pm
I wish it were not so, but morality is not objective.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?

You seem to think truth is objective (that's what you must mean when you say, "It is so," for example). What convinced you that morals simply could not be objective?
Don’t know. Let’s try to focus on an example of objective morality for now.
Okay.
What about the value of values per se?
That can't be established. We know that we DO value things, we don't know what's RIGHT for us to value, if there's no objective morality. Nor do we have any assurance that when we value something, it's actually valuable.
Doesn’t everyone have the moral responsibility to have a set of values of some sort?
No. If feelings are the basis, then anybody who doesn't feel he has responsibility simply does not have any. And even those who may feel they do, don't know why they feel they do, or that they actually have the responsibilities they are imagining they have.
Couldn’t we set aside those who are amoral?
That would be all of us, rationally speaking. Because even the people who are not amoral don't have any way to explain to themselves what makes it right for them not to be amoral.

The bottom line is this: THAT we have feelings, we all know. But we don't know if we have the RIGHT feelings. We don't know WHY we ought to have those feelings, if we ought to. And we don't know that there is any TRUTH or JUSTIFICATION behind those feelings, because there isn't any objective truth to which we could compare our feelings.

That's the situation of the Emotivist or the Intuitionist. They've got feelings (or intuitions), but nothing else.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:53 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:15 pm
I thought I had explained the European liberal democracy is global
You had "explained," but wrongly, on several counts.

Firstly, there's no logical deduction from" X is global" to "X is right." If Nazism were global, would you be backing that as a universal morality? Of course not. But why not, if globalizing something is enough to make it legitimate? So you see that it makes no difference how many people believe a thing, if it's still an immoral thing.

But as it is, you're quite factually wrong. The vast majority of the human species does not live under conditions of democratic freedom, and nothing close, as a matter of fact. China, most of Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South and Central America, and of course Russia, do not have anything like the "liberal democracy" you suggest they have.

Meanwhile, more than one Westerner is campaigning vigorously for global authoritarianism, in place of democracy. Socialism is being offered as the new hope of the Democratic Party in the US. Almost half of England wants to surrender its sovereignty to a completely unelected, undemocratic body, the EU. So your confidence that "liberal democracy" is, or ever will be global is really unwarranted by the facts. Global tyranny seems like the new direction.

However, even were we to have global control by a single government, in the absence of objective moral standards their own morality would be suspect. How would we know that the global authority was forcing us to follow the RIGHT morality?

So it's no answer at all.

Skepdick
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:53 pm
Firstly, there's no logical deduction from" X is global" to "X is right."
But there is a logical deduction from "X became global" to "X is not wrong".

If X was wrong - those who are trying to globalize X would face clear and violent opposition.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:53 pm
If Nazism were global, would you be backing that as a universal morality?
Q.E.D Nazism tried to become global. It was wrong, so we killed them for it.

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by commonsense » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:42 pm

We know that we DO value things, we don't know what's RIGHT for us to value, if there's no objective morality. Nor do we have any assurance that when we value something, it's actually valuable...

If feelings are the basis, then anybody who doesn't feel he has responsibility simply does not have any. And even those who may feel they do, don't know why they feel they do, or that they actually have the responsibilities they are imagining they have...

The bottom line is this: THAT we have feelings, we all know. But we don't know if we have the RIGHT feelings. We don't know WHY we ought to have those feelings, if we ought to. And we don't know that there is any TRUTH or JUSTIFICATION behind those feelings, because there isn't any objective truth to which we could compare our feelings.
That’s what I’ve been thinking all along.

If morality were to be absolute, then the same moral responsibility would apply in all situations.

Let us assume for now that life is valuable and the preservation of life has value as well. If preservation of life were an absolute moral responsibility in all situations, all comatose or otherwise vegetative patients would be maintained on life support indefinitely. All those in intractable pain would be kept alive by artificial means forever. All stand-your-ground laws would be struck down, and sell defense would be an unacceptable excuse for murder.

But patients are sometimes treated palliatively when there can be no improvement in their quality of life. In some parts of the US, physician assisted suicide is an option for the hopeless who are suffering from inconsolable pain.

Yet CPR will still be performed to save the lives of heart attack victims. Life jackets will still be made available on sea craft. Trains will continue to have brakes, and railroad crossings will continue to be marked or equipped for safety.

Preservation of life is perhaps nearly absolute, or almost absolute, but not absolute. That means that there is at least one moral responsibility that is not applied the same in every scenario.

So, morality is not absolute.It’s relative.

We do value things, however we cannot know what's right for us to value, because morality is not absolute. Nor can we have any assurance that when we value something, it's absolutely actually valuable. Anything could be valuable or not.

We cannot know whether something is valuable, but we can believe it is, even without evidence or reason. We can do this because belief requires no proof, no logic, no evidence. Belief is based on blind faith and feelings of rightness.

I can believe that something is rightly valuable just because it feels to me that it is. If it doesn’t feel to you like it is right, then it is neither absolutely right nor absolutely wrong. It’s relative.

There SHOULD be absolute values, some things that everyone knows are always right. Nonetheless, there can be no absolute morality.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Common

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:46 pm

"Let us assume for now that life is valuable and the preservation of life has value as well. If preservation of life were an absolute moral responsibility in all situations, all comatose or otherwise vegetative patients would be maintained on life support indefinitely. All those in intractable pain would be kept alive by artificial means forever. All stand-your-ground laws would be struck down, and sell defense would be an unacceptable excuse for murder."

If human life, the human individual, is intrinsically, objectively valuable, then, yeah, every effort ought be made to keep comatose (but not brain dead) folks alive (cuz they may wake up); those in intractible pain ought, as self-owned individuals, be able to off themselves (owning themselves they get to do with themselves as they choose); a person, in defense of his life or another, ought be able to stand his ground (the self-owned get to preserve themselves from predation; predators forfeit themselves preying on others).

The morality of it (the responsibility of it) lies not in the preservation of the human individual but in leavin' him be.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:44 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:05 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:53 pm
Firstly, there's no logical deduction from" X is global" to "X is right."
But there is a logical deduction from "X became global" to "X is not wrong".
No, there is not.

If there were, and Hitler had won WW2, then Nazism would be global. That wouldn't make it "not wrong." It would just make it global.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:50 pm

commonsense wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:42 pm
The bottom line is this: THAT we have feelings, we all know. But we don't know if we have the RIGHT feelings. We don't know WHY we ought to have those feelings, if we ought to. And we don't know that there is any TRUTH or JUSTIFICATION behind those feelings, because there isn't any objective truth to which we could compare our feelings.
That’s what I’ve been thinking all along.
Hmmm...then why concern yourself with morality? You don't believe it exists, then.
If morality were to be absolute, then the same moral responsibility would apply in all situations.
In all relevantly similar situations. Yes. But what's the problem with that?
Let us assume for now that life is valuable and the preservation of life has value as well.
Why? Why assume what you think isn't real?
So, morality is not absolute. It’s relative.
No, that does not follow. What follows from your premises is not that it's relative, but that it's a delusion.
Belief is based on blind faith and feelings of rightness.
That's absurd. That means that "belief is believing things you know ain't so." In other words, it makes belief mere delusion.
...there can be no absolute morality.
You've said this a bunch of times, but never given any reason we should think it's true. I asked you how you came to this conclusion, but you haven't answered.

But please, tell me now...

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by commonsense » Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:50 pm
commonsense wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:42 pm
The bottom line is this: THAT we have feelings, we all know. But we don't know if we have the RIGHT feelings. We don't know WHY we ought to have those feelings, if we ought to. And we don't know that there is any TRUTH or JUSTIFICATION behind those feelings, because there isn't any objective truth to which we could compare our feelings.
That’s what I’ve been thinking all along.
Hmmm...then why concern yourself with morality? You don't believe it exists, then.
If morality were to be absolute, then the same moral responsibility would apply in all situations.
In all relevantly similar situations. Yes. But what's the problem with that?
Let us assume for now that life is valuable and the preservation of life has value as well.
Why? Why assume what you think isn't real?
So, morality is not absolute. It’s relative.
No, that does not follow. What follows from your premises is not that it's relative, but that it's a delusion.
Belief is based on blind faith and feelings of rightness.
That's absurd. That means that "belief is believing things you know ain't so." In other words, it makes belief mere delusion.
...there can be no absolute morality.
You've said this a bunch of times, but never given any reason we should think it's true. I asked you how you came to this conclusion, but you haven't answered.

But please, tell me now...
Yes, any belief could be a delusion and every delusion is a (false) belief.

Mea culpa. I must’ve had a mini-stroke. I honestly thought that my last post draws us all to the conclusion that there is no objective morality. I definitely thought that you would spot this right away. I was wrong.

I will try to be more explicit.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:38 am

commonsense wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:28 am
I honestly thought that my last post draws us all to the conclusion that there is no objective morality.
I can't see how.

It takes that conclusion for granted, maybe...but that's different from showing the conclusion is correct and necessary.
I will try to be more explicit.
Great.

But you could start by just answering my question: what led you to the conclusion that there is no such thing as objective morality?

Assuming you're a rational person, that should also convince us too. So explaining your own process would do the job nicely.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Mannie, Common

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:54 am

"But you could start by just answering my question: what led you to the conclusion that there is no such thing as objective morality? Assuming you're a rational person, that should also convince us too. So explaining your own process would do the job nicely."

*Yep. I can explain why I think morality 'is' objective (and I'm not the sharpest knife), so it should be a piece of cake for Common (who's visited the whetstone recently) to fill us in on why morality is subjective.









*see, Jay? my 'yep' button ain't busted

Skepdick
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:44 pm
No, there is not.

If there were, and Hitler had won WW2, then Nazism would be global. That wouldn't make it "not wrong." It would just make it global.
The causal chain makes it logically deducible. You are attempting to hypothesize away causality.

IF.

Hitler didn't win WW2 and Nazism didn't become global. BECAUSE the whole damn world though it was wrong. Wrong enough to gang up on the Nazis.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Belinda » Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:53 pm
Belinda wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:15 pm
I thought I had explained the European liberal democracy is global
You had "explained," but wrongly, on several counts.

Firstly, there's no logical deduction from" X is global" to "X is right." If Nazism were global, would you be backing that as a universal morality? Of course not. But why not, if globalizing something is enough to make it legitimate? So you see that it makes no difference how many people believe a thing, if it's still an immoral thing.

But as it is, you're quite factually wrong. The vast majority of the human species does not live under conditions of democratic freedom, and nothing close, as a matter of fact. China, most of Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South and Central America, and of course Russia, do not have anything like the "liberal democracy" you suggest they have.

Meanwhile, more than one Westerner is campaigning vigorously for global authoritarianism, in place of democracy. Socialism is being offered as the new hope of the Democratic Party in the US. Almost half of England wants to surrender its sovereignty to a completely unelected, undemocratic body, the EU. So your confidence that "liberal democracy" is, or ever will be global is really unwarranted by the facts. Global tyranny seems like the new direction.

However, even were we to have global control by a single government, in the absence of objective moral standards their own morality would be suspect. How would we know that the global authority was forcing us to follow the RIGHT morality?

So it's no answer at all.
European liberal democracy seems to be the status quo however and that is what we have to work with whoever we are. European liberal democracy is the best economic basis for capitalism, if the populations and the power elites can tolerate it. Unless you have a better alternative why change it?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:42 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:08 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:44 pm
No, there is not.

If there were, and Hitler had won WW2, then Nazism would be global. That wouldn't make it "not wrong." It would just make it global.
The causal chain makes it logically deducible. You are attempting to hypothesize away causality.

IF.

Hitler didn't win WW2 and Nazism didn't become global. BECAUSE the whole damn world though it was wrong. Wrong enough to gang up on the Nazis.
If what you say above represents your position, then it's one of the below, or a combination thereof:

1. Numbers make right, because whatever's more "global" is right.

2. Might makes right, because we gang up against our rivals and beat them down.

But obviously, neither of these is true. Numbers of deluded people do not transform a delusion into truth, nor truth into a delusion. And power has never been the same as rightness (pace Nietzsche).

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:48 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:57 am
European liberal democracy seems to be the status quo
Not anywhere but Europe, and even there it means very different things in different countries.
European liberal democracy is the best economic basis for capitalism, if the populations and the power elites can tolerate it. Unless you have a better alternative why change it?
Why would anyone "tolerate" what is not problematic? "Tolerate" implies that there's some problem, and unless I misunderstand, you want to say this is the best we can get. But if it is, then why is anyone having to "tolerate" it?

As it is, I would support going to a kind of liberal democracy -- not European style, because that's messed up, but something that better exemplifies fundamental liberal-democratic principles, and with a much more limited government.

But since you have to "tolerate" it, maybe you also see a problem with what you call "European" democracy, and I'm interested in seeing what that is.

Skepdick
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:42 pm
If what you say above represents your position, then it's one of the below, or a combination thereof:

1. Numbers make right, because whatever's more "global" is right.

2. Might makes right, because we gang up against our rivals and beat them down.
Strawman. Might is required to protect that which is right.

You can't seem to tell the difference between something BEING global and something BECOMING global without incident.

Tacit acceptance.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests