A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

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
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:27 am A claim such as 'according to this factual description of rights claimed and acknowledged, the following conclusion about abortion is valid' has nothing to do with morality at all.
You must already have a definition for morality by which you can compare a proposition against it, to come to such a conclusion.

So... what exactly is your definition of morality?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by iambiguous »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:14 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 6:51 am Start here:

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/11023058 ... n-overturn

Imagine yourself addressing the court. You're explaining to the Justices how you yourself have "derived objective conclusions" regarding the morality of abortion.

And then, given those conclusions, critique the ruling that was handed down.

Though, again, not to us here in a philosophy forum discussion revolving around ethical theory, but to those women who are actually confronted with "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty" that can revolve around an unwanted pregnancy.
Well, to clarify, this is a bit different from what I requested, as this is a case questioning the constitutionality of abortions per sé, rather than a case questioning the morality of a particular (or hypothetical) instance of abortion. Therefore I'll have to analyze the constitution itself. But that's OK.
Why does a community pass laws? Isn't it basically to prescribe and to proscribe particular behaviors? And why does the community choose to do this? Isn't it because the community deems certain behaviors to be either right or wrong...good or bad?

And how close to or far away from that is the study of ethics in philosophy?

A national or a state Constitution is just another manifestation of this.

You can Google the U.S. Constitution and abortion and be linked to sites like this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... n-abortion

Now we have the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling. And now we have 6 Supreme Court justices that many argue are basing their interpretation of the Constitution on their religious values. And religious values are all about morality. Not only in regard to this side of the grave but in regard to the other side as well.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:14 pmHowever, I have to stress that an objective moral analysis is -- by definition -- not partial, and as such it's not an appeal to convince anyone. Rather, it offers a basis to derive rational moral conclusions from first principles. This means that it doesn't really matter whether I explain it to people in a philosophy forum or to actual women confronted with these decisions.
Okay, so you are noting that an "objective moral analysis" -- by definition -- might be accepted here theoretically, but it cannot be used to actually convince a woman struggling with an unwanted pregnancy such that she can use it to make the most rational decision for herself.

Instead, that still revolves basically around this...
Again and again: the pro-life folks insist that the problem "down here" is that the pro-choice folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace the "natural right" of the unborn to exist beyond the womb. And then the "pro-choice" folks insist that, on the contrary, the pro-life folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace a woman's "political right" to choose abortion in order to secure equality with men in a world where biologically only women can become pregnant.

The part where in regard to morality those on both sides are honestly able to make reasonable arguments given different sets of assumptions about the human condition pertaining to unwanted pregnancies.
So, "for all practical purposes", we have your "objective moral analysis", but for those on both sides of issue at Planned parenthood, in the legislatures and in the courts, nothing really changes at all. There it still comes down to who has the political power to pass and to rule on which laws.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:14 pmBased on your qualifier in the last paragraph, I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for. If not, maybe you can clarify what your expectation is, because as far as I'm concerned, an objective description simply informs us of the way things are. As such, all that can be changed about it is the tone and presentation, not the actual substance.
I told you what I am looking for: your theoretical assessment addressed to those dealing with the existential reality of abortion.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:28 am I told you what I am looking for: your theoretical assessment addressed to those dealing with the existential reality of abortion.
I can't tell if you're accepting the validity of the concern I've raised or not. Let me rephrase it: if a person has a strong incentive for a particular fact to be something else than it actually is, and the issue is complex enough such that the correct answer is not entirely self-evident, then that person will naturally argue for the (incorrect) answer that is beneficial to them, even if they know that it's wrong.

Do you accept the validity of this proposition? Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that all people, always, deny facts that they themselves know to be true, only because it serves their interests. I'm also not denying that sometimes, people can actually make a valid point even though it seems like they're opposing a known fact. I'm saying that there is an incentive to do so -- and incentives usually influence behavior. As such, it's perfectly possible to state something truthful, but have it denied by someone -- not because the statements truth value is questionable, but because the implications of it being true conflict with the interests of the person denying it.

This isn't really a controversial point, so I hope we can agree on it. But I have pointed this out a couple of times and get the sense that you're avoiding it.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by Peter Holmes »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:16 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:27 am A claim such as 'according to this factual description of rights claimed and acknowledged, the following conclusion about abortion is valid' has nothing to do with morality at all.
You must already have a definition for morality by which you can compare a proposition against it, to come to such a conclusion.

So... what exactly is your definition of morality?
I go with standard dictionary definitions. Here's the first I came across:

morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:

My point is that the claiming, acknowledgement and possession of rights - so, the whole business of rights - is open to moral appraisal. A right may not be a morally right or good thing, full stop. So a factual description of the rights claimed, etc, in a situation, says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness - the morality - of the actions or behaviour involved.

Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And your theory's premise(s) are non-moral.

PS. As I remember, you wrote some time ago that your aim is to explain why or why we say X is morally right/wrong - and that your proposed factual description of the rights involved in a situation could provide that explanation.

And - (not sure if I made this response then) - facts (or at least premises) about why we have moral values and codes aren't moral facts, so they don't and can't establish moral objectivity.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by iambiguous »

Why does a community pass laws? Isn't it basically to prescribe and to proscribe particular behaviors? And why does the community choose to do this? Isn't it because the community deems certain behaviors to be either right or wrong...good or bad?

And how close to or far away from that is the study of ethics in philosophy?

A national or a state Constitution is just another manifestation of this.

You can Google the U.S. Constitution and abortion and be linked to sites like this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... n-abortion

Now we have the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling. And now we have 6 Supreme Court justices that many argue are basing their interpretation of the Constitution on their religious values. And religious values are all about morality. Not only in regard to this side of the grave but in regard to the other side as well.
Okay, so you are noting that an "objective moral analysis" -- by definition -- might be accepted here theoretically, but it cannot be used to actually convince a woman struggling with an unwanted pregnancy such that she can use it to make the most rational decision for herself.

Instead, that still revolves basically around this...
Again and again: the pro-life folks insist that the problem "down here" is that the pro-choice folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace the "natural right" of the unborn to exist beyond the womb. And then the "pro-choice" folks insist that, on the contrary, the pro-life folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace a woman's "political right" to choose abortion in order to secure equality with men in a world where biologically only women can become pregnant.
The part where in regard to morality those on both sides are honestly able to make reasonable arguments given different sets of assumptions about the human condition pertaining to unwanted pregnancies.
So, "for all practical purposes", we have your "objective moral analysis", but for those on both sides of issue at Planned parenthood, in the legislatures and in the courts, nothing really changes at all. There it still comes down to who has the political power to pass and to rule on which laws.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:04 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:28 am I told you what I am looking for: your theoretical assessment addressed to those dealing with the existential reality of abortion.
I can't tell if you're accepting the validity of the concern I've raised or not. Let me rephrase it: if a person has a strong incentive for a particular fact to be something else than it actually is, and the issue is complex enough such that the correct answer is not entirely self-evident, then that person will naturally argue for the (incorrect) answer that is beneficial to them, even if they know that it's wrong.
And again: the fact that, as some argue, abortion kills the unborn or the fact that, as others argue, forcing women to give birth denies them equality with men in a world where biologically only women can get pregnant.

My point being that in a No God world no mere mortal is intelligent/knowledgeable enough to come up with the "correct answer". Both sides insist that the other side is wrong. So, I ask you to note for them your own theoretical assessment above regarding objective Morality. See how that works "in reality" out in the world of actual flesh and blood abortions.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:04 pmDo you accept the validity of this proposition? Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that all people, always, deny facts that they themselves know to be true, only because it serves their interests. I'm also not denying that sometimes, people can actually make a valid point even though it seems like they're opposing a known fact. I'm saying that there is an incentive to do so -- and incentives usually influence behavior. As such, it's perfectly possible to state something truthful, but have it denied by someone -- not because the statements truth value is questionable, but because the implications of it being true conflict with the interests of the person denying it.
Your...proposition? And it's not whether I accept or reject it here in an "ethical theory" discussion forum but, instead, from my frame of mind, how whatever "theoretical" conclusion someone might come to here is accepted or rejected by actual women confronted with an unwanted pregnancy...or how those in a legislature or on a court react to it when actual laws are being passed or ruled on.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:04 pmThis isn't really a controversial point, so I hope we can agree on it. But I have pointed this out a couple of times and get the sense that you're avoiding it.
Same here. Only, from my frame of mind, it's the part where in my view you avoid taking your theoretical conclusions to the parties I mention above. Such that, "for all practical purposes", a just resolution can be reached.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:58 am Thx again for the interesting and stimulating observations and arguments 😄
...although I'll skip a few to retain some semblance of focus, but I will try to cover as much as possible.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:33 pm Here I am getting confused again about what it is that you mean by "descriptive". Utilitarianism is assertoric, it asserts that certain types of valuing are logically prior to others, there is no descriptive way to assert such things, it is prescriptive. The theory that is most commonly referred to as descriptive in my experience is the one that was cooked specifically to be descriptive, which is non-congitivism, in which moral assertions don't actually have assertoric content with truth conditions and stuff, but instead are describing states of mind such as emotions or similar for which there can be no truth condition.
I wasn't quite aware of this, good to know! -- What I mean by "descriptive" is nothing crazy; I consider a concept to be descriptive when it describes something that we can observe in the world around us. For example, I would argue that the terms "pain" and "pleasure" are descriptive, because -- even though they refer to subjective experiences -- it's possible to perceive and discern them through various means.

Yes, utilitarianism asserts i.e. that pleasure ought to be maximized and that pain ought to be minimized. In this sense utilitarianism provides a concrete definition for what it means for something to be moral or immoral: it's "moral" to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, and "immoral" to minimize pleasure and maximize pain.

This stands in contrast to deontological ethics, where "immoral" is generally just defined as that which shouldn't be done. So these terms don't describe anything in particular, not even a subjective emotion. Rather, they're purely prescriptive: you shouldn't do X because it's wrong and ought not to be done.
That's just not at all how it works. Any account of how to do morality better, or the right way to do it, is by definition prescriptive. Describing your prescription is no way to make your work descriptive.

Utilitarianism is not descriptive. It isn't even less prescriptive than deontological methods. If you want a generalised descriptive account of morality and ethics you would end up either describing the various things that people in various times and places happen to have believed (without suggesting one set of beliefs is better because that would be prescriptive) or you would describe the state of observable moral consensus at large today and conclude that there is no particular reason to consider morality to even be a singular type of thing, nor to suppose that moral disagreements can be resolved by appealing to properties of such a thing.

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:58 am I would argue that a descriptive approach such as utilitarianism can be used meaningfully without assertions -- its proponents just happen to assign a positive value to pleasure and a negative one to pain. However, we could just as well say that they're equal, or that it's not possible to say which is truly positive and negative. In this case, utilitarianism would simply inform us how to maximize or minimize either pain or pleasure, without a value judgement. This would be a more "honest" version of utilitarianism, since assigning objective value to subjective values is fallacious. It's not even that difficult to imagine circumstances where minimizing pleasure or maximizing pain would be entirely appropriate (although I realize utilitarians would argue that in the long run, everything is done to maximize pleasure in some sense -- which is probably an unfalsifiable claim).
Do you have your own special definition of assertion now?

And are you trying to do this without asserting that the evaluation of bad or undesirable can apply to the subjective experience of pain?
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:48 pm Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And your theory's premise(s) are non-moral.
I don't think that follows -- the way I see it there are two distinct intellectual disciplines dealing with the same issue, but approaching it from two different angles. One is subjective, as it references personal values, preferences, experiences and intuitions to inform us about what's morally right and wrong.

The other one is objective, as it's derived from logical principles, without relying on subjective values and such.

Now, the subjective (and inter-subjective) approach is fairly vague, imprecise and inconsistent, so it's difficult to work with. However, we "know" a lot about it intuitively, as it's part of the world that we experience daily.

The objective approach is strictly logical, thus making it consistent and repeatable, with predictive and explanatory power (well, at least that's the expectation). The question is what it should be based on, such that it leads to useful and sensible conclusions.

I'm certainly not the first person to come up with the idea of an objective moral framework -- Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics and Randian Objectivism are some examples. The problem with these approaches is that they lead to strange conclusions that often contradict our intuitive, subjective understanding of morality. Furthermore, they don't provide us with a complete tool set, to enable us to apply them to every conceivable moral problem.

I argue that this isn't the case in my proposed approach -- it consistently aligns well with our moral intuitions and can be applied to any situation.

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:48 pm And - (not sure if I made this response then) - facts (or at least premises) about why we have moral values and codes aren't moral facts, so they don't and can't establish moral objectivity.
Well, to clarify: what I'm saying is that the approach I'm presenting informs us about the rights and duties that are present in any given circumstance, as well as their state (whether they're "valid" or not). So sure, we can say that this in itself does not constitute "moral" facts.

However, rights and duties -- I would argue -- are the building blocks of morality as we understand it, subjectively. Therefore, an objective framework which maps well to our subjective understanding of morality can reasonably be considered moral, in the sense of "pertaining to morality". If we subjectively accept that respecting valid, legitimate rights is moral, we can therefore talk about "moral facts", in the same sense as we can talk about mathematical facts if we accept the validity of mathematical principles (which are just as "optional" as moral principles).

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the approach I propose actually describes "physical reality". It simply happens to lead to consistent and useful insights pertaining to moral questions, when applied properly. That's all.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:14 pm Same here. Only, from my frame of mind, it's the part where in my view you avoid taking your theoretical conclusions to the parties I mention above. Such that, "for all practical purposes", a just resolution can be reached.
How exactly do you expect me to get in front of an actual court? 😅

Not only do I not have any such connections, but I also literally live on the other side of the earth. If you're willing to arrange it and pay for all expenses then we can talk 👌
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:12 pm That's just not at all how it works. Any account of how to do morality better, or the right way to do it, is by definition prescriptive. Describing your prescription is no way to make your work descriptive.
I don't think this follows. I assume you would agree that a theory such as, for instance, Newtonian mechanics is descriptive in nature. And yet, we should use if we want to solve the particular problems that theory is designed to solve.

Morality is not an exception. If we want to understand who has a particular right or duty in a given scenario, and which of those rights and duties are "valid" or not, we also should use a theory of Morality, as the one I proposed. This does not make the theory itself prescriptive.

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:12 pm Do you have your own special definition of assertion now?

And are you trying to do this without asserting that the evaluation of bad or undesirable can apply to the subjective experience of pain?
I would argue that pain can be defined in a value-free manner, as pain receptors literally, physically exist. Pain is not a value or an opinion, it's an actual physiological phenomenon. We don't have to say that pain is "bad" or "undesirable" (if we do, that's a subjective evaluation). It simply is. And the same can be said about pleasure.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:12 pm That's just not at all how it works. Any account of how to do morality better, or the right way to do it, is by definition prescriptive. Describing your prescription is no way to make your work descriptive.
I don't think this follows. I assume you would agree that a theory such as, for instance, Newtonian mechanics is descriptive in nature. And yet, we should use if we want to solve the particular problems that theory is designed to solve.
OMG, I have colour coded descriptive and prescriptive portions of the above for you. This is not a negotitation, I have now explained descriptive versus prescriptive as understood in the field of philosophy in sufficient depth for this conversation.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:20 am Morality is not an exception. If we want to understand who has a particular right or duty in a given scenario, and which of those rights and duties are "valid" or not, we also should use a theory of Morality, as the one I proposed. This does not make the theory itself prescriptive.
You are guilty of blatant wishful thinking. Just as VA fools himself he can cross the is/ought gap by just imaginining for himself what is the will of DNA, you are fooling yourself that this whole thing you have about rights is discovered not made. But you are right there making it up.

I have already told you what a couple of actually descriptive theories would look like. Utilitarianism is not descriptive and your thing is not either. I hope this information has got through this time.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:20 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:12 pm Do you have your own special definition of assertion now?

And are you trying to do this without asserting that the evaluation of bad or undesirable can apply to the subjective experience of pain?
I would argue that pain can be defined in a value-free manner, as pain receptors literally, physically exist. Pain is not a value or an opinion, it's an actual physiological phenomenon. We don't have to say that pain is "bad" or "undesirable" (if we do, that's a subjective evaluation). It simply is. And the same can be said about pleasure.
There is no way to assert that pain is to be avoided in favour of pleasure without asserting anything. You can try to hold it as something that has been successfully asserted wihtout noticing the action of the assertion only by lying to yourself.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:43 am OMG, I have colour coded descriptive and prescriptive portions of the above for you. This is not a negotitation, I have now explained descriptive versus prescriptive as understood in the field of philosophy in sufficient depth for this conversation.
Yes, I'm pretty sure we don't have any disagreements here; a prescriptive proposition can be described, but this does not make the prescriptive proposition descriptive. A descriptive proposition can be prescribed, but this does not make the descriptive proposition prescriptive.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:43 am You are guilty of blatant wishful thinking. Just as VA fools himself he can cross the is/ought gap by just imaginining for himself what is the will of DNA, you are fooling yourself that this whole thing you have about rights is discovered not made. But you are right there making it up.
But I'm not 😅

When I say that a theory is derived from logic, I'm not implying that it's a "discovery" that describes the natural world. I'm saying the conclusions which can be drawn from it can be derived based on its own axioms.

I completely understand that what I'm proposing is "made up". It just happens to align really well with our best-effort moral deliberations, which makes it a useful abstraction. Nothing more, nothing less. An objective theory does not have to describe things as they "actually" are (whatever that means). Newtonian mechanics for example are not strictly "true" (meaning, they don't describe the natural world as it really is). And yet, they're still very useful abstractions, which can be used to describe and predict natural phenomena.

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:43 am There is no way to assert that pain is to be avoided in favour of pleasure without asserting anything. You can try to hold it as something that has been successfully asserted wihtout noticing the action of the assertion only by lying to yourself.
But that's not what I'm claiming... I completely agree that you can't conclude that pain should be avoided without asserting that it's "undesirable" in some way. What I'm saying is that pain is objectively identifiable as such, and so is pleasure. This, in itself, tells us nothing about their value and whether we should prefer one over the other. Pain is literally just a physiological reaction that is triggered by certain stimuli. I realize that a descriptive version of Utilitarianism does not constitute Utilitarianism-as-intended, as it wouldn't have any moral (prescriptive) implications.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by iambiguous »

Why does a community pass laws? Isn't it basically to prescribe and to proscribe particular behaviors? And why does the community choose to do this? Isn't it because the community deems certain behaviors to be either right or wrong...good or bad?

And how close to or far away from that is the study of ethics in philosophy?

A national or a state Constitution is just another manifestation of this.

You can Google the U.S. Constitution and abortion and be linked to sites like this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... n-abortion

Now we have the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling. And now we have 6 Supreme Court justices that many argue are basing their interpretation of the Constitution on their religious values. And religious values are all about morality. Not only in regard to this side of the grave but in regard to the other side as well.

Okay, so you are noting that an "objective moral analysis" -- by definition -- might be accepted here theoretically, but it cannot be used to actually convince a woman struggling with an unwanted pregnancy such that she can use it to make the most rational decision for herself.

Instead, that still revolves basically around this...

Again and again: the pro-life folks insist that the problem "down here" is that the pro-choice folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace the "natural right" of the unborn to exist beyond the womb. And then the "pro-choice" folks insist that, on the contrary, the pro-life folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace a woman's "political right" to choose abortion in order to secure equality with men in a world where biologically only women can become pregnant.

The part where in regard to morality those on both sides are honestly able to make reasonable arguments given different sets of assumptions about the human condition pertaining to unwanted pregnancies.

So, "for all practical purposes", we have your "objective moral analysis", but for those on both sides of issue at Planned parenthood, in the legislatures and in the courts, nothing really changes at all. There it still comes down to who has the political power to pass and to rule on which laws.

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:04 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:28 am I told you what I am looking for: your theoretical assessment addressed to those dealing with the existential reality of abortion.


I can't tell if you're accepting the validity of the concern I've raised or not. Let me rephrase it: if a person has a strong incentive for a particular fact to be something else than it actually is, and the issue is complex enough such that the correct answer is not entirely self-evident, then that person will naturally argue for the (incorrect) answer that is beneficial to them, even if they know that it's wrong.


And again: the fact that, as some argue, abortion kills the unborn or the fact that, as others argue, forcing women to give birth denies them equality with men in a world where biologically only women can get pregnant.

My point being that in a No God world no mere mortal is intelligent/knowledgeable enough to come up with the "correct answer". Both sides insist that the other side is wrong. So, I ask you to note for them your own theoretical assessment above regarding objective Morality. See how that works "in reality" out in the world of actual flesh and blood abortions.

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:04 pmDo you accept the validity of this proposition? Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that all people, always, deny facts that they themselves know to be true, only because it serves their interests. I'm also not denying that sometimes, people can actually make a valid point even though it seems like they're opposing a known fact. I'm saying that there is an incentive to do so -- and incentives usually influence behavior. As such, it's perfectly possible to state something truthful, but have it denied by someone -- not because the statements truth value is questionable, but because the implications of it being true conflict with the interests of the person denying it.


Your...proposition? And it's not whether I accept or reject it here in an "ethical theory" discussion forum but, instead, from my frame of mind, how whatever "theoretical" conclusion someone might come to here is accepted or rejected by actual women confronted with an unwanted pregnancy...or how those in a legislature or on a court react to it when actual laws are being passed or ruled on.

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:04 pmThis isn't really a controversial point, so I hope we can agree on it. But I have pointed this out a couple of times and get the sense that you're avoiding it.


Same here. Only, from my frame of mind, it's the part where in my view you avoid taking your theoretical conclusions to the parties I mention above. Such that, "for all practical purposes", a just resolution can be reached.
Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:56 pm How exactly do you expect me to get in front of an actual court? 😅

Not only do I not have any such connections, but I also literally live on the other side of the earth. If you're willing to arrange it and pay for all expenses then we can talk 👌
Again, I noted above that this discussion was unfolding in the "ethical theory" forum. Ethics discussed by and large up in the intellectual/philosophical clouds. And that's fine. But I asked if there was anyone interested in bringing their points down out of the clouds.

You said that you were and we settled on abortion as the focus.

And ever since I've been trying to apprehend how your own theoretical conclusions regarding human ethics -- objective Morality -- might be encompassed pertaining to the existential reality among women confronting an unwanted pregnancy, and in regard to legislatures and courts passing and ruling on laws that either prescribe or proscribe actual human behaviors "down here".

But, from my frame of mind, you persist in not going there at all.

So, sure, continue to discuss ethics theoretically here in the ethical theory forum. There are any number of members who prefer that themselves.

And, when you are more willing to discuss the ethics of abortion in the manner in which I prefer -- existentially -- we can continue our exchange.

Or, sure, if any others here are agreeable to discussing the theoretical conclusions that they have come to in the "Applied Ethics" forum, let's begin a new thread there.
User avatar
Alexander_Reiswich
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:16 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by Alexander_Reiswich »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:07 pm Again, I noted above that this discussion was unfolding in the "ethical theory" forum. Ethics discussed by and large up in the intellectual/philosophical clouds. And that's fine. But I asked if there was anyone interested in bringing their points down out of the clouds.

You said that you were and we settled on abortion as the focus.

And ever since I've been trying to apprehend how your own theoretical conclusions regarding human ethics -- objective Morality -- might be encompassed pertaining to the existential reality among women confronting an unwanted pregnancy, and in regard to legislatures and courts passing and ruling on laws that either prescribe or proscribe actual human behaviors "down here".

But, from my frame of mind, you persist in not going there at all.

So, sure, continue to discuss ethics theoretically here in the ethical theory forum. There are any number of members who prefer that themselves.

And, when you are more willing to discuss the ethics of abortion in the manner in which I prefer -- existentially -- we can continue our exchange.

Or, sure, if any others here are agreeable to discussing the theoretical conclusions that they have come to in the "Applied Ethics" forum, let's begin a new thread there.
Here's what I can offer:

- I can analyze parts of the US founding documents based on what I consider an objective, value-free standard (which is designed to maximize fairness)

- I can show how, on that basis, the constitution can be clarified and improved, to remove the dubious task of "interpreting" it

- I can explain how laws pertaining to abortion can be designed on the basis of these clarifications

- I can elaborate on how these laws can be applied in a specific hypothetical court case

And that's pretty much it. If this doesn't meet your standards, then I'm afraid I'm of no use :P
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6210
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:17 am When I say that a theory is derived from logic, I'm not implying that it's a "discovery" that describes the natural world. I'm saying the conclusions which can be drawn from it can be derived based on its own axioms.

I completely understand that what I'm proposing is "made up". It just happens to align really well with our best-effort moral deliberations, which makes it a useful abstraction. Nothing more, nothing less. An objective theory does not have to describe things as they "actually" are (whatever that means). Newtonian mechanics for example are not strictly "true" (meaning, they don't describe the natural world as it really is). And yet, they're still very useful abstractions, which can be used to describe and predict natural phenomena.
You are very generous in marking your own homework, but this is plain foolishness. You don't have a system that aligns with *OUR* best-effort moral deliberations, you have an engine for agreeing with your own predispositions and and an insane bullshit sales patter about it being purely descriptive and non-normative while doing that.

Your deliberations about abortion aren't worth shit, and your mechanised means for formalising your own opinion into moral fact (which is all that these things are ever for) won't impress anyone who isn't you. Just as nobody actually agrees with any of the insane "moral facts" that VA spits out.

The point of moral, normative, evaluative facts out there to be discovered not created is that they offer the possibility of resolving ambiguity by reference to features of the world that are not subjective. You and VA are trying to make your things equivalent to maths or science by downgrading those methods to matters of shared opinion because neither of you can make that reference back to the world work.

You can't live up to your lofty claims of equivalence so you have to make the other thing a wretched, meaner, littler thing than it is out of jealousy.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: A coherent approach to objective Morality -- allegedly...

Post by iambiguous »

Alexander_Reiswich wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:08 am
iambiguous wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:07 pm Again, I noted above that this discussion was unfolding in the "ethical theory" forum. Ethics discussed by and large up in the intellectual/philosophical clouds. And that's fine. But I asked if there was anyone interested in bringing their points down out of the clouds.

You said that you were and we settled on abortion as the focus.

And ever since I've been trying to apprehend how your own theoretical conclusions regarding human ethics -- objective Morality -- might be encompassed pertaining to the existential reality among women confronting an unwanted pregnancy, and in regard to legislatures and courts passing and ruling on laws that either prescribe or proscribe actual human behaviors "down here".

But, from my frame of mind, you persist in not going there at all.

So, sure, continue to discuss ethics theoretically here in the ethical theory forum. There are any number of members who prefer that themselves.

And, when you are more willing to discuss the ethics of abortion in the manner in which I prefer -- existentially -- we can continue our exchange.

Or, sure, if any others here are agreeable to discussing the theoretical conclusions that they have come to in the "Applied Ethics" forum, let's begin a new thread there.
Here's what I can offer:

- I can analyze parts of the US founding documents based on what I consider an objective, value-free standard (which is designed to maximize fairness)

- I can show how, on that basis, the constitution can be clarified and improved, to remove the dubious task of "interpreting" it

- I can explain how laws pertaining to abortion can be designed on the basis of these clarifications

- I can elaborate on how these laws can be applied in a specific hypothetical court case

And that's pretty much it. If this doesn't meet your standards, then I'm afraid I'm of no use :P
Okay, start with the Big One:

"In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment protected abortion as a fundamental right. However, the government retained the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy."

No need to be "hypothetical" at all in regard to abortion.

But eventually I will ask you to bring the applications of objective Morality around to those actual flesh and blood women confronting the existential reality of an unwanted pregnancy.

The part that revolves around this:
Again and again: the pro-life folks insist that the problem "down here" is that the pro-choice folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace the "natural right" of the unborn to exist beyond the womb. And then the "pro-choice" folks insist that, on the contrary, the pro-life folks have no intention of being honest because in being honest about abortion they would embrace a woman's "political right" to choose abortion in order to secure equality with men in a world where biologically only women can become pregnant.
In other words, those who tell us...

"Objective Morality? That's easy. It revolves around the 'natural right' of the unborn to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'".

And those who tell us:

"Objective Morality? That's easy. It revolves around the 'political right' of women to pursue equality with men in a world where biologically only women can get pregnant".
Post Reply