Re: What could make morality objective?
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:10 pm
Morality can be made seemingly objective if it accords with natural human nature. But nobody knows what natural human nature is.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
OK, we will come back to this in just a second to show you how much of decision theory you take for granted.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:08 pm A fact is a linguistic expression that correctly describes a feature of reality, given the way we use the signs involved.
By the law of excluded middle, it must also be said that that IF water is NOT a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, and IF that is not how we use the signs "water", "oxygen", "hydrogen" and "compound" then the assertion is NOT a fact.if water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, then the assertion 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen' is a fact.
Question: : Is water a compound of hydrogen and oxygen? Either it is or it isn't. Please examine the diagram above.
Question: Is this the way we use the signs "water", "compound", "hydrogen" and "oxygen"? Either it is or it isn't. Please examine the diagram above.given the way we use the signs involved
So, Mr Holmes. How have you made the yes/no CHOICES above?Decision theory (or the theory of choice) is the study of the reasoning underlying an agent's choices.
We do not know precisely, but we do approximately. Given the cohort of 8 billion people we have a sufficiently large sample size to make inferences.
You are missing the point. I am pointing squarely at the mental process by which you assert "correctness" and "incorrectness".Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:08 pmI use 'right' and 'wrong' in this context to mean 'correct' and 'incorrect'. Obviously.Morality aside, I really do want to kick you in the testicles. Because this is probably the 5th time I am asking you to state your criteria by which you evaluate "rightness" and "wrongness"!
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I'll let you connect the dots.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:08 pm And that has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness.
Thanks for your input - and I'm still working on your description of the conjunct.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:24 amOK, we will come back to this in just a second to show you how much of decision theory you take for granted.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:08 pm A fact is a linguistic expression that correctly describes a feature of reality, given the way we use the signs involved.
Since you have been insisting on "logical connection" I shall oblige you by holding you accountable to the very highest standards of logic. Just to demonstrate how much of a hypocrite you are.
Just to demonstrate that you care about "logical connection" only when it suits your argument.
By the law of excluded middle, it must also be said that that IF water is NOT a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, and IF that is not how we use the signs "water", "oxygen", "hydrogen" and "compound" then the assertion is NOT a fact.if water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, then the assertion 'water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen' is a fact.
Remember this picture. You are going to need it in just a second:
decision-theory.png
Question: : Is water a compound of hydrogen and oxygen? Either it is or it isn't. Please examine the diagram above.
Lets call the answer to this question P.
Question: Is this the way we use the signs "water", "compound", "hydrogen" and "oxygen"? Either it is or it isn't. Please examine the diagram above.given the way we use the signs involved
Lets call the answer to this question Q.
And so your proposition 'A fact is a linguistic expression that correctly describes a feature of reality, given the way we use the signs involved' reduces down to the logical expression: P ∧ Q
IF P is true AND Q is true THEN then the proposition is true.
This produces the following truth table
P Q P∧Q (FACTUALITY)
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1
Allow me to translate these into English for you.
You can only assert "factuality" IF you can assert the truth-value of BOTH of the following propositions:
A: Water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen.
B: This is how we use the signs"water", "compound", "hydrogen" and "oxygen"
It should hit you on forehead like a 10" Gentleman's sausage that asserting the truth-value of A above is a circular problem to the very thing you are trying to assert as "factual".
So, please enlighten us by providing the two algorithms by which you have asserted the truth-values of P and Q.
Do you know the other name for the word "decision"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theorySo, Mr Holmes. How have you made the yes/no CHOICES above?Decision theory (or the theory of choice) is the study of the reasoning underlying an agent's choices.
The irony, that facts are subject to choice should make you question everything you believe!
You have most definitely mistaken me for a classical logician.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:41 pm And as you are an adherent of classical logic, and therefore the identity rule.
Both really.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:41 pm I assume you're promoting descriptive rather than normative decision theory.
1 The identity rule is not that two things are the same, but that a thing is what it is: a=a; a rock is a rock.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:45 pmYou have most definitely mistaken me for a classical logician.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:41 pm And as you are an adherent of classical logic, and therefore the identity rule.
I reject the law of identity.
To say "Two things are the same" is a contradiction in and of itself.
How can TWO things be "the same". Can you be the same as me? Can I be the same as you?
The law of identity is a linguistic error, but a pragmatic necessity.
You can define the natures of purpose bred animals and truly wild animals. Humans are different as humans are neither purpose bred nor wild but are artificial products of cultures.
Meaningless tautology. Obviously a thing is what it is.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm 1 The identity rule is not that two things are the same, but that a thing is what it is: a=a; a rock is a rock.
I do not outright reject LEM, but I consider it on case-by-case basis where the decision-space of the options presented is all-exhaustive.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm 2 Identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle are (classically) mutually entailed tautologies. You can't accept one and reject the others.
Yes but when you say A=A (rock is rock) and B=B (pebble is pebble) you have already committed an error. Because there is an intersection of shared properties between A and B. Some rocks are pebbles. Some pebbled may be rocks.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm 3 Logic deals with language, not reality. The identity rule isn't a linguistic error; it's what makes using language possible.
I am not for a second mistaking language for reality. Reality is reality. Language is what we SAY about reality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm The error occurs when we mistake language for reality - the map for the terrain - as though categories and propositions inhere in reality.
Back to the drawing board?
Sure we are complex beasts, but statistical clusters/patterns emerge with such large sample sizes and therefore - so do theories of human values.
We are not beasts, complex or otherwise.. We conceive of ourselves spiritually, so spiritual we are.. We may conceive of others as beasts, but this is purely injustice since they conceive of themselves as of a higher order, then so it shall be..Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:27 pmSure we are complex beasts, but statistical clusters/patterns emerge with such large sample sizes and therefore - so do theories of human values.
I can't say that all cultures embrace "equality" for example, but I can say that majority of cultures see murder as unacceptable.
Things like life, love, variety are some of the "terminal" human values. I repeat: this is through a holistic lens, it's not universally true, but it is cumulatively true.
A rule has no truth-value, so it's neither true nor false. The identity rule (it's not a law) means: the thing that we call a rock is a thing that we call a rock - which tells us nothing about what the things that we call a rocks are, and why they're different from all the things we call [not-rocks]. And that's why a correspondence theory of truth is mistaken.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:23 pmMeaningless tautology. Obviously a thing is what it is.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm 1 The identity rule is not that two things are the same, but that a thing is what it is: a=a; a rock is a rock.
But it can also be interpreted as a proposition.
A is one rock rock.
B is another rock
A = B can be true.
A = B can be false.
A = A can also be false.
Earlier, in the same post, you wrote both of the following:
Depending on the meaning of "=". Logic is infinitely flexible when you only have the LNC.
I do not outright reject LEM, but I consider it on case-by-case basis where the decision-space of the options presented is all-exhaustive.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm 2 Identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle are (classically) mutually entailed tautologies. You can't accept one and reject the others.
It is not a universal law.
Here's the conflation and confusion at work. You're mistaking the application of rules (we call this a rock and this a pebble) for the things and properties we talk about, using the rules. Things and properties don't name, categorise and describe themselves. That thing, with those properties, is not in itself a rock or a pebble - so, of course, we can call it either or both.Yes but when you say A=A (rock is rock) and B=B (pebble is pebble) you have already committed an error. Because there is an intersection of shared properties between A and B. Some rocks are pebbles. Some pebbled may be rocks.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm 3 Logic deals with language, not reality. The identity rule isn't a linguistic error; it's what makes using language possible.
1 As I've shown above, mistaking what we say about reality for reality is absolutely and precisely what you're doing.
I am not for a second mistaking language for reality. Reality is reality. Language is what we SAY about reality.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:48 pm The error occurs when we mistake language for reality - the map for the terrain - as though categories and propositions inhere in reality.
Back to the drawing board?
Which is precisely why I do not agree with the proposition that objective morality is a linguistic construct.
The word 'notion' makes me want to reach for my revolver. Morality is a ... notion. Wtf does that mean?
For if language were to disappear overnight and our ability to speak disappeared, our morality would not!
Morality is a behaviouristic/contractual notion.