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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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?
In what ways does it change how philosophers think of reality?
Philosopher and author of 'Ineffability and its Metaphysics', Silvia Jonas explains how mathematics has come to shape our politics, ethics and our very ideas what the world is.

Basically what Silvia Jonas pointed out is that
despite the claim the mathematic can provide proofs which are accepted without questions, there are loads of disagreements in mathematics at the fundamental levels.

So why must be disagreements within morality be condemned instantly?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:54 am Basically what Silvia Jonas pointed out is that
despite the claim the mathematic can provide proofs which are accepted without questions, there are loads of disagreements in mathematics at the fundamental levels.

So why must be disagreements within morality be condemned instantly?
It's not the mere existence of disagreements that is the problem. The primary issue is that nothing really resolves those disagreements.

Eventually you get into problems for the simple reason that lots of different things are good, including loyalty, honesty, polite table manners, justice, fairness, and so on. They aren't really compatible though, so somebody is always trying to rearrange them such that all the others are subject to one pre-eminent good. But nobody ever comes up with a solid reason why we sould make the things we find morally desirable subordinate to the things someboy else prioritises.

All these allegorical arguments that morality is a bit like maths or science won't hold up because anything you usefully compare morality to would have to include similar problems of similar complexity. Arguments from analogy are always easily dismissed if the analogy is shown not to include a pertinent similarity in this way.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:21 am It's not the mere existence of disagreements that is the problem. The primary issue is that nothing really resolves those disagreements.
Every disagreement is resolvable.

At the very least by the death of the opponents. Planck's principle.

Or via democratic compromise: where the under-represented get shafted.

Or via war: where the immoral-but-powerful sometimes win.

The only unresolvable disagreements are of the armchair semantic kind.
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: 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?
In what ways does it change how philosophers think of reality?
Philosopher and author of 'Ineffability and its Metaphysics', Silvia Jonas explains how mathematics has come to shape our politics, ethics and our very ideas what the world is.

Basically what Silvia Jonas pointed out is that
despite the claim the mathematic can provide proofs which are accepted without questions, there are loads of disagreements in mathematics at the fundamental levels.

So why must be disagreements within morality be condemned instantly?
That there are moral disagreements has nothing to do with moral antirealism.

That moral antirealism is correct, however, does tell us that there's no way, even hypothetically, to settle moral disagreements only supposing that what people are trying to do with moral utterances is to report what the real (read "extramental") moral whatevers are (which frankly is an odd thing to suppose, because who would say that this is what they're doing?). This is because there are no real ("extramental") moral whatevers to even look at so that we could report what's the case with them.

This does not mean that moral antirealism implies that there's no way to settle moral disagreements. This is because what the vast majority of folks are doing with morality is telling us how they feel about interpersonal behavior, and via consideration, empathy, etc., we can modify at least some of our feelings so that we wind up on the same page as someone else.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:54 am Basically what Silvia Jonas pointed out is that
despite the claim the mathematic can provide proofs which are accepted without questions, there are loads of disagreements in mathematics at the fundamental levels.

So why must be disagreements within morality be condemned instantly?
It's not the mere existence of disagreements that is the problem. The primary issue is that nothing really resolves those disagreements.

Eventually you get into problems for the simple reason that lots of different things are good, including loyalty, honesty, polite table manners, justice, fairness, and so on. They aren't really compatible though, so somebody is always trying to rearrange them such that all the others are subject to one pre-eminent good. But nobody ever comes up with a solid reason why we sould make the things we find morally desirable subordinate to the things someboy else prioritises.

All these allegorical arguments that morality is a bit like maths or science won't hold up because anything you usefully compare morality to would have to include similar problems of similar complexity. Arguments from analogy are always easily dismissed if the analogy is shown not to include a pertinent similarity in this way.
I stated it is only a clue which is reasonably valid.

Within morality there are disagreements in terms of say slavery, but those who disagree with 'no human ought to enslave another' are on a reducing trend since 10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nations has banned specifically chattel slavery.
I am confident those who still agree with chattel slavery would be a minute % of the nearly 8 billion people on earth.
If 10 million still agree with chattel slavery that would only be 0.125%

From the above and together with loads of other factors, we can infer there is something inherent within all humans that is driving the reduction of such evil thus by definition is related to morality.

Whatever is claimed as true ultimately must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:56 pm
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?
In what ways does it change how philosophers think of reality?
Philosopher and author of 'Ineffability and its Metaphysics', Silvia Jonas explains how mathematics has come to shape our politics, ethics and our very ideas what the world is.

Basically what Silvia Jonas pointed out is that
despite the claim the mathematic can provide proofs which are accepted without questions, there are loads of disagreements in mathematics at the fundamental levels.

So why must be disagreements within morality be condemned instantly?
That there are moral disagreements has nothing to do with moral antirealism.
You are ignorant of the range of arguments [e.g. despite being cited in the video] used by moral-anti-realists against moral realism.
That moral antirealism is correct, however, does tell us that there's no way, even hypothetically, to settle moral disagreements only supposing that what people are trying to do with moral utterances is to report what the real (read "extramental") moral whatevers are (which frankly is an odd thing to suppose, because who would say that this is what they're doing?). This is because there are no real ("extramental") moral whatevers to even look at so that we could report what's the case with them.

This does not mean that moral antirealism implies that there's no way to settle moral disagreements. This is because what the vast majority of folks are doing with morality is telling us how they feel about interpersonal behavior, and via consideration, empathy, etc., we can modify at least some of our feelings so that we wind up on the same page as someone else.
As understood, there is no certainty, thus no agreement based on certainty.

The current problem is most of those who do not accept moral realism are influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPS and classical analytic philosophers where any views on morality or not in alignment with theirs are by default to be condemned as woo woo, mystical, nonsense, meaningless.
This is driven by their desperate psychology and a trigger of their defense mechanisms based on ideology and tribalism.

However consensus can be achieved objectively based on justified true moral truths that are verified and justified empirically and philosophical within a credible FSK by all rational people.
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: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:25 am

You are ignorant of the range of arguments [e.g. despite being cited in the video] used by moral-anti-realists against moral realism.
Show me a moral antirealist (and not just some rando on a board like this) employing that argument.

By th way, what happened to you demonstrating how a belief becomes something independent of persons via "institutionalization"? You completely ignored that discussion.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Peter Holmes »

Just a sidebar.

I think the label 'moral anti-realist' may be as misleading as the label 'moral non-cognitivist'. They're both implicitly insulting.

Moral subjectivism is about - and assumes the existence of - human social reality; and it isn't in any way a rejection of thought about, and knowledge of, that human, social reality.

(As for the OP - disagreement about the status of mathematical assertions - for example, between Platonists and nominalists - is nothing like disagreement about the status of moral assertions.)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:16 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:54 am Basically what Silvia Jonas pointed out is that
despite the claim the mathematic can provide proofs which are accepted without questions, there are loads of disagreements in mathematics at the fundamental levels.

So why must be disagreements within morality be condemned instantly?
It's not the mere existence of disagreements that is the problem. The primary issue is that nothing really resolves those disagreements.

Eventually you get into problems for the simple reason that lots of different things are good, including loyalty, honesty, polite table manners, justice, fairness, and so on. They aren't really compatible though, so somebody is always trying to rearrange them such that all the others are subject to one pre-eminent good. But nobody ever comes up with a solid reason why we sould make the things we find morally desirable subordinate to the things someboy else prioritises.

All these allegorical arguments that morality is a bit like maths or science won't hold up because anything you usefully compare morality to would have to include similar problems of similar complexity. Arguments from analogy are always easily dismissed if the analogy is shown not to include a pertinent similarity in this way.
I stated it is only a clue which is reasonably valid.

Within morality there are disagreements in terms of say slavery, but those who disagree with 'no human ought to enslave another' are on a reducing trend since 10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nations has banned specifically chattel slavery.
I am confident those who still agree with chattel slavery would be a minute % of the nearly 8 billion people on earth.
If 10 million still agree with chattel slavery that would only be 0.125%

From the above and together with loads of other factors, we can infer there is something inherent within all humans that is driving the reduction of such evil thus by definition is related to morality.

Whatever is claimed as true ultimately must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
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.
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 »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:36 am One is a very weak bandwagon argument
Which both he and Skepdick have a propensity for, though with some cognitive dissonance, because they also both have views that aren't at all mainstream.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 9:50 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:25 am

You are ignorant of the range of arguments [e.g. despite being cited in the video] used by moral-anti-realists against moral realism.
Show me a moral antirealist (and not just some rando on a board like this) employing that argument.
Did you listen to that 'short' video? it is in there.

By the way, what happened to you demonstrating how a belief becomes something independent of persons via "institutionalization"? You completely ignored that discussion.
I have given the principles involved and numerous examples.

Here's one more,
In a legal framework and system, individuals' beliefs when instituitionalized are independent of the individuals' beliefs and opinion.

In a court case [legal institution], say a murder, before judgments there will be a wide range of individuals beliefs [even among the juries] whether the defendant is guilty or not.
But once the final decision is made by the required majority of the jury, it then becomes an official legal truth conditioned upon the specific legal FSK, which is independent of any individual's belief.

Example:
That "Lee Harvey Oswald is the convicted murderer of President J F Kennedy" is a legal truth [avoiding the term fact] as conditioned upon the specific legal FSK.
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.
It is then the truth of the specific legal FSK, not the truth of any or group of individuals.
Get the point?

The principle is the same, once any belief is institutionalized, that belief [justified truth] via the FSK [institution] is then independent of individuals beliefs and opinion, thus objective [as defined].

But because FSKs are human constructs, that truth [justified belief] based on intersubjective consensus is ultimately entangled with the human conditions, i.e. cannot be independent of the human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:16 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:21 am
It's not the mere existence of disagreements that is the problem. The primary issue is that nothing really resolves those disagreements.

Eventually you get into problems for the simple reason that lots of different things are good, including loyalty, honesty, polite table manners, justice, fairness, and so on. They aren't really compatible though, so somebody is always trying to rearrange them such that all the others are subject to one pre-eminent good. But nobody ever comes up with a solid reason why we sould make the things we find morally desirable subordinate to the things someboy else prioritises.

All these allegorical arguments that morality is a bit like maths or science won't hold up because anything you usefully compare morality to would have to include similar problems of similar complexity. Arguments from analogy are always easily dismissed if the analogy is shown not to include a pertinent similarity in this way.
I stated it is only a clue which is reasonably valid.

Within morality there are disagreements in terms of say slavery, but those who disagree with 'no human ought to enslave another' are on a reducing trend since 10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nations has banned specifically chattel slavery.
I am confident those who still agree with chattel slavery would be a minute % of the nearly 8 billion people on earth.
If 10 million still agree with chattel slavery that would only be 0.125%

From the above and together with loads of other factors, we can infer there is something inherent within all humans that is driving the reduction of such evil thus by definition is related to morality.

Whatever is claimed as true ultimately must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
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.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:16 am
I stated it is only a clue which is reasonably valid.

Within morality there are disagreements in terms of say slavery, but those who disagree with 'no human ought to enslave another' are on a reducing trend since 10,000 years ago to the present where all sovereign nations has banned specifically chattel slavery.
I am confident those who still agree with chattel slavery would be a minute % of the nearly 8 billion people on earth.
If 10 million still agree with chattel slavery that would only be 0.125%

From the above and together with loads of other factors, we can infer there is something inherent within all humans that is driving the reduction of such evil thus by definition is related to morality.

Whatever is claimed as true ultimately must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
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.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by Peter Holmes »

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.
On the nail. And, with absolute certainty, I predict VA will either not understand or ignore your refutation. Still - nice one.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Mathematics as A Clue to Moral Realism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:01 am On the nail. And, with absolute certainty, I predict VA will either not understand or ignore your refutation. Still - nice one.
He'll downgrade yet another of his arguments to a clue or a hint, that's what he's been doing for every problem he faces recently. It will become a 43% certainty that he can find a suggestion that slavery is 77% wrong, and there's a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% credible FSK to tell you why this is observable.
Post Reply