Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

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

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:24 am Did you listen to that 'short' video? it is in there.
Are you saying that Silvia Jones is a moral antirealist who employs that argument? Or does she quote a moral antirealist (with an attribution) who employs that argument?

I have given the principles involved and numerous examples.
Nope. You've never explained what I'm asking you to explain.
It is so obvious this legal truth [adjudicated belief] is independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs held by individuals then and even now.
It is a legal truth because the court 'said' so, not because the individuals said so.
Not in the slightest. Your task is to explain how that (belief) could possibly be independent of persons' beliefs via becoming institutionalized. You need to literally explain, in detail, just how this happens ontologically, so that we get to a point where ontologically it somehow (you're going to explain how) becomes something (what?) other than a (personal) belief. Simply claiming that it's the case or saying that it's obvious doesn't cut it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:36 am
In that case you need to adjust your position on abortion. You have written that it is wrong, or whatever half arsed alternative to wrongness your "morality-proper" offers today. But all modern sovereign nations have decriminalised it and it is increasingly common therefore there must be an inherent movement towards abortion as an acceptable practice.

I don't see what use these "clues" you keep offering are supposed to serve. There is nothing important about 56% of philosophers being moral realists, and there is nothing important about this maths thing either. One is a very weak bandwagon argument and the other is a trivial argument from a bad analogy.
If I were to rate the OP's strength as a point for moral realism I would rate it at 25/100 but this point is necessary to reinforce moral realism on the whole in terms of coherence with other stronger arguments points.

It is the same with my point re "abortion" which I believe is not very significant nor very critical to the main moral truth, i.e. 'no human ought to kill humans'.
However the moral truth re "no abortion" as a moral standard will remind humanity there are alternative solutions to abortion rather than irresponsibly and lackadaisically allowing it to go on arbitrarily.

Without a moral standard to remind humanity of the possibility of solutions, no one will strive for alternative solutions.

Besides abortions with medical and psychological reasons, the majority of abortions are done due to the inherent and natural uncontrollable sexual lusts. If this is a recognized root cause, then effective problem solving techniques [btw, my forte] can be used to tackle this root cause in the future [not now] to enable the masses to modulate their uncontrollable sexual lusts.

'Abortion' is not a game people played for fun but entail loads of social, psychological and other costs to the individual[s] and humanity, therefore solutions to abortion are definitely winning choices.
That's some hardcore special pleading you are doing there.

If moral wrongness of slavery is observable through the fact that there is less of it now than there used to be. Then the moral rightness of abortion is observable because there is more of it now than there used to be.

By picking and choosing which thing this logic is supposed to justify and which it doesn't apply to, you expose yourself as not actually believing your own argument.
That is the problem when you claim 'logic' as your 'God' and having the final authority on what is really real.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:24 am Did you listen to that 'short' video? it is in there.
Are you saying that Silvia Jones is a moral antirealist who employs that argument? Or does she quote a moral antirealist (with an attribution) who employs that argument?
She provided quotes from moral antirealist and moral realist.

I have given the principles involved and numerous examples.
Nope. You've never explained what I'm asking you to explain.
It is so obvious this legal truth [adjudicated belief] is independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs held by individuals then and even now.
It is a legal truth because the court 'said' so, not because the individuals said so.
Not in the slightest. Your task is to explain how that (belief) could possibly be independent of persons' beliefs via becoming institutionalized. You need to literally explain, in detail, just how this happens ontologically, so that we get to a point where ontologically it somehow (you're going to explain how) becomes something (what?) other than a (personal) belief. Simply claiming that it's the case or saying that it's obvious doesn't cut it.
I believe we are talking pass each other on the above.

If I am not mistaken your idea of independent and objectivity is that ontological thing that is independent of all human minds, i.e. it will exists even if humans are extinct.

My sense of independence of mind and objectivity is different, i.e.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
    Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Scientific truths and their objectivity are not dependent on a sentient subject, therefore they are objective, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs and opinion.
This happened when an individual[subject]'s thesis is accepted within the scientific-FSK, thus institutionalized, it is independent of the individual's scientists who presented the thesis for acceptance by the scientific "institution" - the scientific FSK.

I believe your confusion is because you are thinking in the common and conventional sense, while I am viewing it from the most refined sense of reality.
To you the proposition 'this is a table' is independent of the individual and regardless of it is institutionalized [by the furniture-FSK, etc.].

But you forget about Russell's doubt?
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814

In addition you are ignorant 'what is a table' is institutionalized within the common-sense-FSK and conventional-sense-FSK.
Since FSKs are human constructs, as such there is no absolutely independent Ontological table-in-itself in the first place.

Your problem is you don't understand which paradigm you are standing on to make your assertion thus insisting you are right based on a one-track minded lesser realistic view.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:38 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:53 am
If I were to rate the OP's strength as a point for moral realism I would rate it at 25/100 but this point is necessary to reinforce moral realism on the whole in terms of coherence with other stronger arguments points.

It is the same with my point re "abortion" which I believe is not very significant nor very critical to the main moral truth, i.e. 'no human ought to kill humans'.
However the moral truth re "no abortion" as a moral standard will remind humanity there are alternative solutions to abortion rather than irresponsibly and lackadaisically allowing it to go on arbitrarily.

Without a moral standard to remind humanity of the possibility of solutions, no one will strive for alternative solutions.

Besides abortions with medical and psychological reasons, the majority of abortions are done due to the inherent and natural uncontrollable sexual lusts. If this is a recognized root cause, then effective problem solving techniques [btw, my forte] can be used to tackle this root cause in the future [not now] to enable the masses to modulate their uncontrollable sexual lusts.

'Abortion' is not a game people played for fun but entail loads of social, psychological and other costs to the individual[s] and humanity, therefore solutions to abortion are definitely winning choices.
That's some hardcore special pleading you are doing there.

If moral wrongness of slavery is observable through the fact that there is less of it now than there used to be. Then the moral rightness of abortion is observable because there is more of it now than there used to be.

By picking and choosing which thing this logic is supposed to justify and which it doesn't apply to, you expose yourself as not actually believing your own argument.
That is the problem when you claim 'logic' as your 'God' and having the final authority on what is really real.
Lol, wtf is that shit supposed to mean?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:07 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:24 am Did you listen to that 'short' video? it is in there.
Are you saying that Silvia Jones is a moral antirealist who employs that argument? Or does she quote a moral antirealist (with an attribution) who employs that argument?
She provided quotes from moral antirealist and moral realist.

I have given the principles involved and numerous examples.
Nope. You've never explained what I'm asking you to explain.
It is so obvious this legal truth [adjudicated belief] is independent of individuals' opinion and beliefs held by individuals then and even now.
It is a legal truth because the court 'said' so, not because the individuals said so.
Not in the slightest. Your task is to explain how that (belief) could possibly be independent of persons' beliefs via becoming institutionalized. You need to literally explain, in detail, just how this happens ontologically, so that we get to a point where ontologically it somehow (you're going to explain how) becomes something (what?) other than a (personal) belief. Simply claiming that it's the case or saying that it's obvious doesn't cut it.
I believe we are talking pass each other on the above.

If I am not mistaken your idea of independent and objectivity is that ontological thing that is independent of all human minds, i.e. it will exists even if humans are extinct.

My sense of independence of mind and objectivity is different, i.e.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
    Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Scientific truths and their objectivity are not dependent on a sentient subject, therefore they are objective, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs and opinion.
This happened when an individual[subject]'s thesis is accepted within the scientific-FSK, thus institutionalized, it is independent of the individual's scientists who presented the thesis for acceptance by the scientific "institution" - the scientific FSK.

I believe your confusion is because you are thinking in the common and conventional sense, while I am viewing it from the most refined sense of reality.
To you the proposition 'this is a table' is independent of the individual and regardless of it is institutionalized [by the furniture-FSK, etc.].

But you forget about Russell's doubt?
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814

In addition you are ignorant 'what is a table' is institutionalized within the common-sense-FSK and conventional-sense-FSK.
Since FSKs are human constructs, as such there is no absolutely independent Ontological table-in-itself in the first place.

Your problem is you don't understand which paradigm you are standing on to make your assertion thus insisting you are right based on a one-track minded lesser realistic view.
Just stop. You had claimed that opinions/beliefs somehow become something other than opinions/beliefs that individuals have once they become institutionalized. You claimed this. I'm challenging you to support the claim. Explain how they become something other than opinions/beliefs that individuals have once they become institutionalized. Or retract the claim.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:37 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:07 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:24 am
Are you saying that Silvia Jones is a moral antirealist who employs that argument? Or does she quote a moral antirealist (with an attribution) who employs that argument?
She provided quotes from moral antirealist and moral realist.


Nope. You've never explained what I'm asking you to explain.


Not in the slightest. Your task is to explain how that (belief) could possibly be independent of persons' beliefs via becoming institutionalized. You need to literally explain, in detail, just how this happens ontologically, so that we get to a point where ontologically it somehow (you're going to explain how) becomes something (what?) other than a (personal) belief. Simply claiming that it's the case or saying that it's obvious doesn't cut it.
I believe we are talking pass each other on the above.

If I am not mistaken your idea of independent and objectivity is that ontological thing that is independent of all human minds, i.e. it will exists even if humans are extinct.

My sense of independence of mind and objectivity is different, i.e.
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
  • In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).
    A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
    Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Scientific truths and their objectivity are not dependent on a sentient subject, therefore they are objective, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs and opinion.
This happened when an individual[subject]'s thesis is accepted within the scientific-FSK, thus institutionalized, it is independent of the individual's scientists who presented the thesis for acceptance by the scientific "institution" - the scientific FSK.

I believe your confusion is because you are thinking in the common and conventional sense, while I am viewing it from the most refined sense of reality.
To you the proposition 'this is a table' is independent of the individual and regardless of it is institutionalized [by the furniture-FSK, etc.].

But you forget about Russell's doubt?
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32814

In addition you are ignorant 'what is a table' is institutionalized within the common-sense-FSK and conventional-sense-FSK.
Since FSKs are human constructs, as such there is no absolutely independent Ontological table-in-itself in the first place.

Your problem is you don't understand which paradigm you are standing on to make your assertion thus insisting you are right based on a one-track minded lesser realistic view.
Just stop. You had claimed that opinions/beliefs somehow become something other than opinions/beliefs that individuals have once they become institutionalized. You claimed this. I'm challenging you to support the claim.

Explain how they become something other than opinions/beliefs that individuals have once they become institutionalized. Or retract the claim.
I have already explained that a "1000" times.

Here is another example,
Supposed you as a scientist have a hunch or hypothesis thesis about some scientific theory, say THEORY-A.
That would only be your opinion or at best belief.

Then you did the necessary experiments in accordance to the scientific methods, you proved your hypothesis and your peers reconfirmed the results of your experiments and thus confirm your THEORY-A is true.
Thereafter you published the above research in a recognized scientific journals and held various press conference to announce your discovered knowledge.
This is the institutionalization [science] of your belief into scientific knowledge which then in independent from you and all other individuals.

Now that THEORY-A is accepted and confirmed, it is no more YOUR opinions nor belief but rather THEORY-A is a scientific truth from the scientific institution and belongs to the scientific institution.

The above is how opinions and beliefs of individual[s] become objective knowledge when they are institutionalized.

That is how all objective scientific knowledge came about as converted from personal opinions and beliefs via the scientific institution.

Get it?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:18 am I already explained that "1000" times.
No, you didn't. And that you think you did shows that you don't understand what you're being asked.
This is the institutionalization [science] of your belief into scientific knowledge which then in independent from you and all other individuals.
HOW is it independent at that point? You don't at all explain how it becomes independent in the above. You just claim that it does.
Now that THEORY-A is accepted and confirmed, it is no more YOUR opinions nor belief
It's not just your opinions/belief. That's not what I'm asking you about though. I'm asking you how it becomes something other than belief period (not just your belief, but anyone's and everyone's).
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8479
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:54 am I am not asserting any of my views, this video is open for discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzaXNPf7rQ
What does mathematics have to do with the nature of human thought?
Not in the way you think.
That is "you" personally.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Terrapin Station »

By the way, I finally looked at the video, and no one she quotes actually says anything like "Moral realism isn't the case BECAUSE there are moral disagreements." All of the quotes are far more nuanced than that idea.

The quotes about science and mathematics also don't amount to saying that no one ever disagrees about scientific and mathematical claims. Again, the idea is far more nuanced than this.
Post Reply