"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Nick_A »

Dachshund, you wrote:
You are correct as well in noting that Peter does not, it would seem, understand the difference between intuitive knowledge and opinion. Briefly, "opinion" is a lower grade of knowledge that concerns the world of perceived sensory experience. Intuition, by contrast is immediate and direct (it is like sticking your finger in an electric socket) arises from the subconscious, it is pre-logical/rational and pre-verbal. It is the highest (strongest and most lucid) class of knowledge and concerns the realm of intellect. Plato called it noesis and placed it at the pinnacle of all the different categories of knowledge.
Would you say that recognition of objective values is based on the same principle? Morality is based on man made opinions while the experience of objective conscience is based on remembrance? Where morality is by definition subjective, conscience, when genuine, is an a priori experience or the remembrance of a universal truth already known at the depths of our being?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Pete

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:54 am Fair enough. I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts and therefore undeniable. It leads to inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on.
Would it be fair to say that your entire argument is agenda-driven? You have simply chosen to classify morality as "subjective" because in your mind this would lead to less abortionists being murdered; less homsexuals being thrown off buildings etc.

That is - once the "self-righteous" recognize their moral assertions are "just opinions" we ought to see less persecution and murders.
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:54 am The problem with utilitarianism and consequentialism is that what actually is 'the greatest good for the greatest number', or 'a good consequence' is and can only ever be a subjective moral judgement - never a fact.
Yet just in the previous paragraph you were making a consequentialist argument. You were warning of the dangers of moral objectivism by pointing out its undesirable consequences: persecution and murder.

Surely, this begs a question: Why is the opinion of a moral subjectivist any less dangerous than the opinion of moral objectivist?

Why is your opinion better?
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Peter Holmes »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:54 am Fair enough. I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts and therefore undeniable. It leads to inquisitions and persecutions, abortion practitioners being murdered, homosexuals being thrown off tall buildings, and so on.
Would it be fair to say that your entire argument is agenda-driven? You have simply chosen to classify morality as "subjective" because in your mind this would lead to less abortionists being murdered; less homsexuals being thrown off buildings etc.

That is - once the "self-righteous" recognize their moral assertions are "just opinions" we ought to see less persecution and murders.
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:54 am The problem with utilitarianism and consequentialism is that what actually is 'the greatest good for the greatest number', or 'a good consequence' is and can only ever be a subjective moral judgement - never a fact.
Yet just in the previous paragraph you were making a consequentialist argument. You were warning of the dangers of moral objectivism by pointing out its undesirable consequences: persecution and murder.

Surely, this begs a question: Why is the opinion of a moral subjectivist any less dangerous than the opinion of moral objectivist?

Why is your opinion better?
I haven't 'simply chosen to classify morality as "subjective"'. I'm arguing that it is subjective - and showing why that's the case. If you disagree, please refute my argument by citing a moral fact and showing why it's true, independent of opinion.

And I think you miss the point about consequentialism - which also applies to utilitarianism. It's because there are no moral facts that both theories merely defer the question: what are the 'greatest good' and 'good consequences'?

And I'm not saying my moral opinion on any issue is (factually) better than any other. That's what objectivists say. I'm arguing the exact opposite - that because there are only moral opinions, that's all we have - and I have mine. Perhaps you haven't been following the discussion.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Pete

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:57 am I haven't 'simply chosen to classify morality as "subjective"'. I'm arguing that it is subjective - and showing why that's the case. If you disagree, please refute my argument by citing a moral fact and showing why it's true, independent of opinion.
Sure. But in order to make such an argument you have examined both positions, yes? And you have chosen one over the other, yes?

An argument that contradicts itself requires no refutation.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:57 am And I think you miss the point about consequentialism - which also applies to utilitarianism. It's because there are no moral facts that both theories merely defer the question: what are the 'greatest good' and 'good consequences'?
Which is precisely what you did. You merely deferred the question: Why is less danger better than more danger?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:57 am And I'm not saying my moral opinion on any issue is (factually) better than any other. That's what objectivists say.
But you are saying that. Not in so many words, but you are implying it.

You have evaluated "moral relativism" side by side with "moral objectivism" and you have determined that "moral relativism" leads to better consequences. e.g it leads to less murders, less persecution and less inquisitions. Therefore you are saying that moral relativism is consequentially better than moral objectivism.

If it were true that no moral opinion is any better than any other then surely you would have said "I have no way to determine whether moral objectivism or moral relativism is true". And yet - you have made an informed choice. How?

That is a performative contradiction.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Peter Holmes »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:10 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:57 am I haven't 'simply chosen to classify morality as "subjective"'. I'm arguing that it is subjective - and showing why that's the case. If you disagree, please refute my argument by citing a moral fact and showing why it's true, independent of opinion.
Sure. But in order to make such an argument you have examined both positions, yes? And you have chosen one over the other, yes?

An argument that contradicts itself requires no refutation.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:57 am And I think you miss the point about consequentialism - which also applies to utilitarianism. It's because there are no moral facts that both theories merely defer the question: what are the 'greatest good' and 'good consequences'?
Which is precisely what you did. You merely deferred the question: Why is less danger better than more danger?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:57 am And I'm not saying my moral opinion on any issue is (factually) better than any other. That's what objectivists say.
But you are saying that. Not in so many words, but you are implying it.

You have evaluated "moral relativism" side by side with "moral objectivism" and you have determined that "moral relativism" leads to better consequences. e.g it leads to less murders, less persecution and less inquisitions. Therefore you are saying that moral relativism is consequentially better than moral objectivism.

If it were true that no moral opinion is any better than any other then surely you would have said "I have no way to determine whether moral objectivism or moral relativism is true".

And yet - you have chosen.
I assume you are Univalence under another name. I detect the same faulty reasoning, misrepresentation and misfiring questions.

So ... not interested. Go and bother someone else.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Pete

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:18 pm I assume you are Univalence under another name.I detect the same faulty reasoning, misrepresentation and misfiring questions.
You seem to have appointed yourself as the paragon and arbiter for "reason", and anybody who points out the contradictions in your argument is guilty of "faulty reasoning".

Of course, the explanation (consistent with your position) is obvious. You have mistaken your own opinions for fact.
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:18 pm So ... not interested. Go and bother someone else.
When did ignoring your own errors become the way of philosophy?
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:18 pm I think the great danger of moral objectivism is that people can think their own moral opinions are facts
Your ability to discern moral opinion from facts has done nothing to stop you from proselytising for your moral opinions. Why is that any less dangerous than the sanctimony of moral objectivism?

I can know the meaning of a word, but can I know the intention of a word? --Stanley Cavell
It is trivial to point out that without intent there is no meaning least infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters produce some meaningful poetry.

The intention behind your argument for moral relativism is clear. You intend to reduce inquisitions, murders and homophobia by proselytising moral objectivists to your point of view.

Those are not the deeds or a man who says: "I'm not saying my moral opinion on any issue is better than any other.". Those are very much the deeds of a man who believes their position is morally superior.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Dachshund »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:36 am Dachsund

If you disagree, please focus on one moral claim - one example of what you think is a moral fact - and show why it describes a feature of reality correctly, independent of judgement, belief or opinion, without begging the question, and without appealing to intuition - which also begs the question. (To say 'X is wrong because we intuitively know it's wrong' gets us nowhere.)


OK. Here is a moral claim that is true - that is a fact:


"Objective moral values and duties do actually exist as components of reality (of our universe)."


I say that this claim is true. You are saying it is false. Right?


To begin with, let me be very clear about what I am saying in my claim. I am claiming that our universe (our reality) contains moral categories of values (good and bad) and duties (right and wrong) that exist independently of the OPINION of anyone, and that apply to the actions and motivations of all persons. So, we are talking ONTOLOGY; got it? That is the subject matter at hand - and the question is whether these categories actually exist "for real". We are NOT discussing epistemology, - i.e; how we come to know these categories. How we come to knowledge of morality is not relevant to the question at hand. To use a simple analogy, whether or not you know the speed-limit on the streets of my city has no effect on the existence of that speed-limit. In my city, you will still get a speeding ticket from a traffic cop if you get caught exceeding the speed-limit, even if the road you were caught on was not posted with any speeding signs. (And) even if you plead with the cop that you just arrived in my city from interstate and had no idea that the speed-limit was 10 mph lower than it is in your home town, you will still get a speeding citation.


Also, my moral claim: "Objective moral values and duties do actually exist as components of reality (our universe)," is not interested in whether you or anyone else happens to believe in objective morality or not.For the purposes of this post, I don't give a fuck if you do not believe in objective morality. Belief in, or a lack of belief in, a truth claim, does not make the claim true or false. Again, by simple analogy, you may not believe that the speed-limit in my home town is 35 mph, but you will still be given a speeding citation if a traffic cop catches you driving at 45 mph in spite of your belief to the contrary. Right ?


What my claim addresses is whether or not these moral categories exist in reality, not in someone's belief system.


To continue, So, we have two different types of reality on the table, don't we ? We have my reality, which is a MORAL UNIVERSE in which objective moral categories exist, and then we have your AMORAL UNIVERSE that contains only individuals' moral OPINIONS - subjective, moral categories (where each person's standard of: right; wrong; good and bad is defined by themselves and applies only to themselves).


So, let's take a look at what each of these two competing realities would look like and then decide which one best describes the features of our own universe.


In your AMORAL universe, objective, moral (ontological) categories do not exist. No action a person takes can be called objectively bad/evil; while one might DISLIKE another's action/behaviour, no external, absolute standard exists by which any action/behaviour can be called good or bad/evil. In the overall scheme of things, a mother breast-feeding and tenderly nurturing her new-born baby is behaving in no better or worse way that a mother who cuts her new-born child's throat with a meat knife. (And) any feelings one has to the contrary is simply OPINION. In your universe, such moral opinions have no basis in reality; that is, nothing objective exists on which to base such a concept.



In my universe, objective, moral categories DO exist and any action can fall into one of three categories:



(1): MORAL ACTIONS - actions that conform to the objective moral standard.

(2): IMMORAL ACTIONS - actions that violate the objective moral standard.

(3): AMORAL ACTIONS - actions which are not addressed by the objective moral standard.



As an objective feature of the universe, and not of an individual human beings, these categories apply to all humans. In the same way the law of gravity applies to all humankind. (And) just like there is no way of escaping the laws of physics for physical creatures, the laws of morality are just as binding on human persons. The sole difference being that the laws of morality are prescriptive (i.e; describing how thing OUGHT be) and not descriptive ( i.e; describing how things ARE).


OK. Now that I've described our two competing universes: YOURS: the AMORAL UNIVERSE, and MINE the MORAL UNIVERSE. Let's see which of the two descriptions best describes what we actually see in our own universe. What follows are two reasons: (A) and (B), why my universe - the MORAL UNIVERSE - is the more accurate description of how things truly are in reality.


REASON (A):


Your concept of an AMORAL UNIVERSE - ( and please remember how I have defined the term "amoral universe" above, in accordance, BTW, with your posted views on morality on this thread) - although it is not logically self - refuting, IS existentially self-refuting. There is, granted, no logical incoherence in the statement: " No objective moral values and duties exist in reality." The problem arises, however, when one attempts to describe how one should LIVE in such a universe...because the instant one makes such an attempt, they have INVALIDATED the concept. In an amoral universe, "how one SHOULD live" is MEANINGLESS...no standard exists to describe how one SHOULD live in your universe.


The problem is sloppy thinking. That is, you have not thought through your position on the issue/s with sufficient critical rigour. It's all too easy for you to sit back and spout the loose and woolly claim: "Objective moral truths do not exist; hooray (!) I therefore have the right to do as I please!" But what you fail to understand is that this claim ( and make no mistake, this is precisely what you are, in effect, saying) makes a moral claim to a "right" while at the same time denying moral reality. If you believe others ought to allow you to live according to the dictates of your own will and your own conscience, then you are , paradoxically, appealing to OBJECTIVE MORALITY to justify what others "OUGHT" to do. Tsk, Tsk,Tsk, Peter.



The logically correct view in an amoral universe like yours is that everyone will do as they do with no moral implications at all. Yet the motley crew of ratbag, atheist feminists (sorry, I've got a serious personal problem with feminists, I absolutely loathe them, for a number of reasons) in the "pro-choice" (i.e; pro-abortion) lobby, for example, frequently make moral demands for theists (Christians, usually) in the pro-life movement to "stop imposing their morality." This demand certainly assumes that theists "ought" to act in a particular way. Yet without objective morality, no such ought can exist. Can it, Peter ?


Or, if you like, you can think of it this way; we are beings who can conceive and consider many different courses of action. Does any course of action exist that should always happen, if possible? Does any course of action exist that ought never to happen ? If one single course of action ought never to happen, then objective morality must exist. I propose that the recent bill signed into law in the state of New York permitting abortion at any stage of a 9-month pregnancy effectively without the need for any sound, compelling reason/s to be given in justifying the "procedure" ought never have taken place.


REASON (B):


In an amoral universe, I find I am hard-pressed, indeed, to determine how the idea of moral categories would come to be (?) While in such a universe, any moral standard is necessarily subjective, such a subjective morality could have no place in reality. Consider... while we can certainly conceive of idea that are fictional, most if not all of these fictional concepts have their roots in reality; Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Monster was sewn together using the limbs and organs, etc; of human corpses and looked like a large, albeit grotesque adult man; a unicorn is an extension of a horse; the "Triffids" from the fictional horror movie ("The Day of the Triffids") were tall, mobile, poisonous plants whose upper features stucturally resembled "pitcher plants", they had a stem, green leaves and a mass of roots near their bases, etc; Zombies are fictional "undead", reanimated corpses that are popular with horror genre (film, book) fans; they basically resemble adult men and women (though they have morbidly discoloured skin and usually look a bit the "worse for wear" in terms of bad dentition, decayed flesh and body wounds, etc; and walk with an unsteady, staggering gait; Anubis, the Egyptian god of trhe dead was represented with the head of a jackal and the body of a man, and so on. I'm sure you get the idea; these fictional entities any most others are derived from reality, they are not created ex nihilo, so to speak.


Yet for the concept of subjective morality to appear in an amoral universe would indeed be like something coming "out of nothing". It would be, to give a brief illustration, like the idea of blue or green appearing in a completely colourless universe. It is impossible to convey the experience of visually perceiving (in one's consciousness) colour, to a man who has been blind since birth; because such a man has no basis upon which to relate such a description. While you might say that blue is a certain wavelength of visible light, that doesn't convey to the blind man what light is, nor the experience of actually seeing blue. For the blind man, the visual perceptions of colour and light do not exist in his experience (in his phenomenal domain/consciousness)



But in an amoral universe, moral categories have no basis of existence in reality. In a world where colour had no basis in existence in reality, everyone would be like the blind man above, completely incapable of understanding the concept of colour. Even if one conceived of such a thing as green or red in their imagination, they could never communicate this idea to others without a shared reference point. For purely subjective concepts, such shared reference points cannot exist.


There is an argument that the fact different cultures and religions have differing concepts of morality is evidence against objective morality. But this is not the case. My sister (who is an interior designer) and I frequently disagree on colours. I'll say something is red, while she insists it's purple. When the object is taken out into the light, we find that she is usually right. Though while we disagree on the colours of objects, neither of us is claiming that the objects have no colour at all. In order for us to have a meaningful conversation about an object's colour, both of us must assume that colour exists, and that the object in question does have a colour. If colour does not exist, then our conversation is meaningless, inexplicable and, frankly, delusional.


So the fact that almost every single person who has reached the age of two seems to have conversations about what men should and should not do seems to be strong evidence that they actually perceive something in the universe that actually exists. Whether politician, clergyman, lawyer, police officer, parent or protester, all make the claim that men should behave in a certain way. It seems incredibly myopic to argue all who hold such views to be sharing the same delusion. What do you think, Peter ?


For example, Christianity teaches us that we should love our enemies, and, as much as possible, we should live in peace. Some branches of Islam believe that one should behead one's enemies, and anyone with a good knowledge of the Koran with tell you that Islam is absolutely NOT a religion of peace - it is quite the opposite. Again, for the point I'm trying to make, which view is correct is irrelevant; but in order for anyone to have a meaningful conversation about which view (if either) is correct, one must assume that a correct view DOES, IN FACT, EXIST. This require an objective moral stance.


Finally, the implications of (A) and (B) are inescapable...unless objective moral categories of good, bad, right, wrong actually exist in reality, our tendency to think in these terms is impossible to explain. Unless, that is, you can explain it for me, Peter, using the principles of your ethical subjectivism.



Regards


Dachshund
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Belinda »

Dachshund wrote:

and the question is whether these categories actually exist "for real". We are NOT discussing epistemology,
But whether or not moral categories are ontically real is a matter of what we can absolutely know. We cannot absolutely know what is more real and what is less real. Navigators on the seas can steer by the Pole Star but they do so within an empirical belief system. There is no ontic equivalent of the Pole Star.
Also, my moral claim: "Objective moral values and duties do actually exist as components of reality (our universe)," is not interested in whether you or anyone else happens to believe in objective morality or not.For the purposes of this post, I don't give a fuck if you do not believe in objective morality. Belief in, or a lack of belief in, a truth claim, does not make the claim true or false. Again, by simple analogy, you may not believe that the speed-limit in my home town is 35 mph, but you will still be given a speeding citation if a traffic cop catches you driving at 45 mph in spite of your belief to the contrary. Right ?
If objective moral values are ontically real why don't they apply to raindrops, dogs, or newborn babies? Ontical reality applies to each and every entity.


(1): MORAL ACTIONS - actions that conform to the objective moral standard.

(2): IMMORAL ACTIONS - actions that violate the objective moral standard.

(3): AMORAL ACTIONS - actions which are not addressed by the objective moral standard.
These alternatives pertain to intersubjective moral standards.

As an objective feature of the universe, and not of an individual human beings, these categories apply to all humans. In the same way the law of gravity applies to all humankind. (And) just like there is no way of escaping the laws of physics for physical creatures, the laws of morality are just as binding on human persons. The sole difference being that the laws of morality are prescriptive (i.e; describing how thing OUGHT be) and not descriptive ( i.e; describing how things ARE).
But the law of gravity applies to everything not humans only .In modern times moral laws apply solely to humans who are capable of moral choice, although in times gone by animals and young children too were punished for infringing moral laws.


Your concept of an AMORAL UNIVERSE - ( and please remember how I have defined the term "amoral universe" above, in accordance, BTW, with your posted views on morality on this thread) - although it is not logically self - refuting, IS existentially self-refuting. There is, granted, no logical incoherence in the statement: " No objective moral values and duties exist in reality." The problem arises, however, when one attempts to describe how one should LIVE in such a universe...because the instant one makes such an attempt, they have INVALIDATED the concept. In an amoral universe, "how one SHOULD live" is MEANINGLESS...no standard exists to describe how one SHOULD live in your universe.
But how they should live depends upon how people decide how they should live. You claim this is existentially self refuting but existence precedes essence .

The lack of absolute truth does not give anyone the moral right to do as they like. The right to do as you like depends upon how what you do relates to relative good, relative truth, relative reason. The only candidate for absolute truth is beauty.
The logically correct view in an amoral universe like yours is that everyone will do as they do with no moral implications at all. Yet the motley crew of ratbag, atheist feminists (sorry, I've got a serious personal problem with feminists, I absolutely loathe them, for a number of reasons) in the "pro-choice" (i.e; pro-abortion) lobby, for example, frequently make moral demands for theists (Christians, usually) in the pro-life movement to "stop imposing their morality." This demand certainly assumes that theists "ought" to act in a particular way. Yet without objective morality, no such ought can exist. Can it, Peter ?
In a very fractured society fundamentalists could forced their bigoted views on everyone else. I live in a democracy, don't you?

Or, if you like, you can think of it this way; we are beings who can conceive and consider many different courses of action. Does any course of action exist that should always happen, if possible? Does any course of action exist that ought never to happen ? If one single course of action ought never to happen, then objective morality must exist. I propose that the recent bill signed into law in the state of New York permitting abortion at any stage of a 9-month pregnancy effectively without the need for any sound, compelling reason/s to be given in justifying the "procedure" ought never have taken place.
Many of us good and reasonable people would say that there are some acts that are always evil acts. But this is not the same as the claim that the specific evil acts are absolutely evil . 'Absolute' does not mean the same as 'everlasting'.



Yet for the concept of subjective morality to appear in an amoral universe would indeed be like something coming "out of nothing".
Your knowledge of natural selection might possibly be deficient; your knowledge of cultural evolution is deficient.

But in an amoral universe, moral categories have no basis of existence in reality. In a world where colour had no basis in existence in reality, everyone would be like the blind man above, completely incapable of understanding the concept of colour. Even if one conceived of such a thing as green or red in their imagination, they could never communicate this idea to others without a shared reference point. For purely subjective concepts, such shared reference points cannot exist.
The shared reference point is not absolutely fixed but is mediated by creative human language.

There is an argument that the fact different cultures and religions have differing concepts of morality is evidence against objective morality. But this is not the case. My sister (who is an interior designer) and I frequently disagree on colours. I'll say something is red, while she insists it's purple. When the object is taken out into the light, we find that she is usually right. Though while we disagree on the colours of objects, neither of us is claiming that the objects have no colour at all. In order for us to have a meaningful conversation about an object's colour, both of us must assume that colour exists, and that the object in question does have a colour. If colour does not exist, then our conversation is meaningless, inexplicable and, frankly, delusional.
But you and your sister share the same cultural values. To the extent that you and your sister share the same memories of colour so you will have your shared memories for comparison with a colour in some novel context.
So the fact that almost every single person who has reached the age of two seems to have conversations about what men should and should not do seems to be strong evidence that they actually perceive something in the universe that actually exists. Whether politician, clergyman, lawyer, police officer, parent or protester, all make the claim that men should behave in a certain way. It seems incredibly myopic to argue all who hold such views to be sharing the same delusion. What do you think, Peter ?
Cultural differences are not delusions. Delusions are pathological by the criterion that delusions are painful and sometimes morbid.

For example, Christianity teaches us that we should love our enemies, and, as much as possible, we should live in peace. Some branches of Islam believe that one should behead one's enemies, and anyone with a good knowledge of the Koran with tell you that Islam is absolutely NOT a religion of peace - it is quite the opposite. Again, for the point I'm trying to make, which view is correct is irrelevant; but in order for anyone to have a meaningful conversation about which view (if either) is correct, one must assume that a correct view DOES, IN FACT, EXIST. This require an objective moral stance.
For that conversation to take place it's not necessary to presume that an absolutely correct view exists. It's best aim for common ground and consent to tolerate what does not interfere with or is positively helpful to others.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Peter Holmes »

Dachshund wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:01 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2019 7:36 am Dachsund

If you disagree, please focus on one moral claim - one example of what you think is a moral fact - and show why it describes a feature of reality correctly, independent of judgement, belief or opinion, without begging the question, and without appealing to intuition - which also begs the question. (To say 'X is wrong because we intuitively know it's wrong' gets us nowhere.)


OK. Here is a moral claim that is true - that is a fact:


"Objective moral values and duties do actually exist as components of reality (of our universe)."


I say that this claim is true. You are saying it is false. Right?


To begin with, let me be very clear about what I am saying in my claim. I am claiming that our universe (our reality) contains moral categories of values (good and bad) and duties (right and wrong) that exist independently of the OPINION of anyone, and that apply to the actions and motivations of all persons. So, we are talking ONTOLOGY; got it? That is the subject matter at hand - and the question is whether these categories actually exist "for real". We are NOT discussing epistemology, - i.e; how we come to know these categories. How we come to knowledge of morality is not relevant to the question at hand. To use a simple analogy, whether or not you know the speed-limit on the streets of my city has no effect on the existence of that speed-limit. In my city, you will still get a speeding ticket from a traffic cop if you get caught exceeding the speed-limit, even if the road you were caught on was not posted with any speeding signs. (And) even if you plead with the cop that you just arrived in my city from interstate and had no idea that the speed-limit was 10 mph lower than it is in your home town, you will still get a speeding citation.


Also, my moral claim: "Objective moral values and duties do actually exist as components of reality (our universe)," is not interested in whether you or anyone else happens to believe in objective morality or not.For the purposes of this post, I don't give a fuck if you do not believe in objective morality. Belief in, or a lack of belief in, a truth claim, does not make the claim true or false. Again, by simple analogy, you may not believe that the speed-limit in my home town is 35 mph, but you will still be given a speeding citation if a traffic cop catches you driving at 45 mph in spite of your belief to the contrary. Right ?


What my claim addresses is whether or not these moral categories exist in reality, not in someone's belief system.


To continue, So, we have two different types of reality on the table, don't we ? We have my reality, which is a MORAL UNIVERSE in which objective moral categories exist, and then we have your AMORAL UNIVERSE that contains only individuals' moral OPINIONS - subjective, moral categories (where each person's standard of: right; wrong; good and bad is defined by themselves and applies only to themselves).


So, let's take a look at what each of these two competing realities would look like and then decide which one best describes the features of our own universe.


In your AMORAL universe, objective, moral (ontological) categories do not exist. No action a person takes can be called objectively bad/evil; while one might DISLIKE another's action/behaviour, no external, absolute standard exists by which any action/behaviour can be called good or bad/evil. In the overall scheme of things, a mother breast-feeding and tenderly nurturing her new-born baby is behaving in no better or worse way that a mother who cuts her new-born child's throat with a meat knife. (And) any feelings one has to the contrary is simply OPINION. In your universe, such moral opinions have no basis in reality; that is, nothing objective exists on which to base such a concept.



In my universe, objective, moral categories DO exist and any action can fall into one of three categories:



(1): MORAL ACTIONS - actions that conform to the objective moral standard.

(2): IMMORAL ACTIONS - actions that violate the objective moral standard.

(3): AMORAL ACTIONS - actions which are not addressed by the objective moral standard.



As an objective feature of the universe, and not of an individual human beings, these categories apply to all humans. In the same way the law of gravity applies to all humankind. (And) just like there is no way of escaping the laws of physics for physical creatures, the laws of morality are just as binding on human persons. The sole difference being that the laws of morality are prescriptive (i.e; describing how thing OUGHT be) and not descriptive ( i.e; describing how things ARE).


OK. Now that I've described our two competing universes: YOURS: the AMORAL UNIVERSE, and MINE the MORAL UNIVERSE. Let's see which of the two descriptions best describes what we actually see in our own universe. What follows are two reasons: (A) and (B), why my universe - the MORAL UNIVERSE - is the more accurate description of how things truly are in reality.


REASON (A):


Your concept of an AMORAL UNIVERSE - ( and please remember how I have defined the term "amoral universe" above, in accordance, BTW, with your posted views on morality on this thread) - although it is not logically self - refuting, IS existentially self-refuting. There is, granted, no logical incoherence in the statement: " No objective moral values and duties exist in reality." The problem arises, however, when one attempts to describe how one should LIVE in such a universe...because the instant one makes such an attempt, they have INVALIDATED the concept. In an amoral universe, "how one SHOULD live" is MEANINGLESS...no standard exists to describe how one SHOULD live in your universe.


The problem is sloppy thinking. That is, you have not thought through your position on the issue/s with sufficient critical rigour. It's all too easy for you to sit back and spout the loose and woolly claim: "Objective moral truths do not exist; hooray (!) I therefore have the right to do as I please!" But what you fail to understand is that this claim ( and make no mistake, this is precisely what you are, in effect, saying) makes a moral claim to a "right" while at the same time denying moral reality. If you believe others ought to allow you to live according to the dictates of your own will and your own conscience, then you are , paradoxically, appealing to OBJECTIVE MORALITY to justify what others "OUGHT" to do. Tsk, Tsk,Tsk, Peter.



The logically correct view in an amoral universe like yours is that everyone will do as they do with no moral implications at all. Yet the motley crew of ratbag, atheist feminists (sorry, I've got a serious personal problem with feminists, I absolutely loathe them, for a number of reasons) in the "pro-choice" (i.e; pro-abortion) lobby, for example, frequently make moral demands for theists (Christians, usually) in the pro-life movement to "stop imposing their morality." This demand certainly assumes that theists "ought" to act in a particular way. Yet without objective morality, no such ought can exist. Can it, Peter ?


Or, if you like, you can think of it this way; we are beings who can conceive and consider many different courses of action. Does any course of action exist that should always happen, if possible? Does any course of action exist that ought never to happen ? If one single course of action ought never to happen, then objective morality must exist. I propose that the recent bill signed into law in the state of New York permitting abortion at any stage of a 9-month pregnancy effectively without the need for any sound, compelling reason/s to be given in justifying the "procedure" ought never have taken place.


REASON (B):


In an amoral universe, I find I am hard-pressed, indeed, to determine how the idea of moral categories would come to be (?) While in such a universe, any moral standard is necessarily subjective, such a subjective morality could have no place in reality. Consider... while we can certainly conceive of idea that are fictional, most if not all of these fictional concepts have their roots in reality; Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Monster was sewn together using the limbs and organs, etc; of human corpses and looked like a large, albeit grotesque adult man; a unicorn is an extension of a horse; the "Triffids" from the fictional horror movie ("The Day of the Triffids") were tall, mobile, poisonous plants whose upper features stucturally resembled "pitcher plants", they had a stem, green leaves and a mass of roots near their bases, etc; Zombies are fictional "undead", reanimated corpses that are popular with horror genre (film, book) fans; they basically resemble adult men and women (though they have morbidly discoloured skin and usually look a bit the "worse for wear" in terms of bad dentition, decayed flesh and body wounds, etc; and walk with an unsteady, staggering gait; Anubis, the Egyptian god of trhe dead was represented with the head of a jackal and the body of a man, and so on. I'm sure you get the idea; these fictional entities any most others are derived from reality, they are not created ex nihilo, so to speak.


Yet for the concept of subjective morality to appear in an amoral universe would indeed be like something coming "out of nothing". It would be, to give a brief illustration, like the idea of blue or green appearing in a completely colourless universe. It is impossible to convey the experience of visually perceiving (in one's consciousness) colour, to a man who has been blind since birth; because such a man has no basis upon which to relate such a description. While you might say that blue is a certain wavelength of visible light, that doesn't convey to the blind man what light is, nor the experience of actually seeing blue. For the blind man, the visual perceptions of colour and light do not exist in his experience (in his phenomenal domain/consciousness)



But in an amoral universe, moral categories have no basis of existence in reality. In a world where colour had no basis in existence in reality, everyone would be like the blind man above, completely incapable of understanding the concept of colour. Even if one conceived of such a thing as green or red in their imagination, they could never communicate this idea to others without a shared reference point. For purely subjective concepts, such shared reference points cannot exist.


There is an argument that the fact different cultures and religions have differing concepts of morality is evidence against objective morality. But this is not the case. My sister (who is an interior designer) and I frequently disagree on colours. I'll say something is red, while she insists it's purple. When the object is taken out into the light, we find that she is usually right. Though while we disagree on the colours of objects, neither of us is claiming that the objects have no colour at all. In order for us to have a meaningful conversation about an object's colour, both of us must assume that colour exists, and that the object in question does have a colour. If colour does not exist, then our conversation is meaningless, inexplicable and, frankly, delusional.


So the fact that almost every single person who has reached the age of two seems to have conversations about what men should and should not do seems to be strong evidence that they actually perceive something in the universe that actually exists. Whether politician, clergyman, lawyer, police officer, parent or protester, all make the claim that men should behave in a certain way. It seems incredibly myopic to argue all who hold such views to be sharing the same delusion. What do you think, Peter ?


For example, Christianity teaches us that we should love our enemies, and, as much as possible, we should live in peace. Some branches of Islam believe that one should behead one's enemies, and anyone with a good knowledge of the Koran with tell you that Islam is absolutely NOT a religion of peace - it is quite the opposite. Again, for the point I'm trying to make, which view is correct is irrelevant; but in order for anyone to have a meaningful conversation about which view (if either) is correct, one must assume that a correct view DOES, IN FACT, EXIST. This require an objective moral stance.


Finally, the implications of (A) and (B) are inescapable...unless objective moral categories of good, bad, right, wrong actually exist in reality, our tendency to think in these terms is impossible to explain. Unless, that is, you can explain it for me, Peter, using the principles of your ethical subjectivism.



Regards


Dachshund
Thanks for another essay. There are many mistakes in your argument, but one or two will do for now. You offer this as a moral claim:

'Objective moral values and duties do actually exist as components of reality (our universe).'

But it's not a moral claim at all. Moral claims contain words such as right, wrong, good, bad, should and ought to. They express moral judgements by using these and similar words. Your claim is factual, because it says something in reality is the case, which you recognise when you say you think it's true, and I think it's false. So it seems you don't understand the difference between factual and non-factual claims, such as moral ones - which may explain why you think moral claims are factual.

I agree that we're arguing about ontology: do moral things actually exist in reality? I've never said morality is an epistemological matter. I deny that it is, because we can know something only if it exists in the first place. But, with a sleight-of-hand, you smuggled in the expression 'moral categories', as though they are moral things - which they aren't. And there are no categories inherent in reality - there are only things which can be categorised. As a moral realist, your task is show the actual things - moral rightness and wrongness - exist.

You offer no evidence that they do - you merely insist that they do and must, at enormous length, and whinge about the consequences of they're not doing so. Tough on us, isn't it? We have to work it out on our own, rationally and collectively. Hence moral debate.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:55 am There are many mistakes in your argument.

(...)

But it's not a moral claim at all. Moral claims contain words such as right, wrong, good, bad, should and ought to.
You are implying that Dachshund's essay should contain less mistakes.

Why is that not a moral claim?
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:55 am We have to work it out on our own, rationally and collectively.
Are you using "have to" differently from the way you might use "ought to"? Because that seems like another moral claim.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:55 am And there are no categories inherent in reality.
This is demonstrably false. There are often no physical borders yet to claim that countries don't exist would be ludicrous.

Or closer to Daschund's argument: there are sections of the autobahn with speed limits, and sections without speed limits.
To claim that this distinction doesn't exist is a sure way to go to prison when you drive above the speed limit in the former.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:55 am And there are no categories inherent in reality.
This is demonstrably false. There are often no physical borders yet to claim that countries don't exist would be ludicrous.

Or closer to Daschund's argument: there are sections of the autobahn with speed limits, and sections without speed limits.
To claim that this distinction doesn't exist is a sure way to go to prison when you drive above the speed limit in the former.
But countries dont exist for birds or clouds. Existence is existence for, unless you are talking metaphysically about existence itself.

The restrictions on the Autobahn exist for drivers, not for the fox who is trying to cross the road.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:06 am But countries dont exist for birds or clouds. Existence is existence for, unless you are talking metaphysically about existence itself.
Sure. Different kinds of categories exist for those entities.

Hemispheres exist for birds - that's why they migrate.
Hemispheres exist for clouds - that's why there are more clouds in the Southern one.

I am merely pointing out that the claim "countries don't exist" would be absurd. As would be the claim 'hemispheres don't exist'. Which would be the logical consequence of Peter's claim since both 'countries' and 'hemispheres' are categories.
Belinda wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:06 am The restrictions on the Autobahn exist for drivers, not for the fox who is trying to cross the road.
The consequences of the restriction aren't quite the same as for drivers, but highways present a road-crossing restriction for the fox none the less.
Which is why we build wild-life crossings.

You cannot speak of reality decoupled from the constraints of experience. I simply assumed that we are all humans on this forum and not foxes, clouds or birds.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Peter Holmes »

If anyone's interested in the point I'm making about categories, I've posted a comment at my OP 'Justified true belief: knowledge and the myth of propositions' at the 'Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge' page. I know this is straying from this page and topic - but it has a bearing on our discussion of facts and categories in relation to morality - and the correspondence theories underpinning them.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: "NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote:
You cannot speak of reality decoupled from the constraints of experience. I simply assumed that we are all humans on this forum and not foxes, clouds or birds.
But Peter claims there are no categories inherent in reality. So your assumption is uncalled-for; explicitly, humans are not the sum total of reality.
Post Reply