What could make morality objective?

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

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:33 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:12 pm
Logik wrote:
And? The human being made a choice to become a soldier.

Does the training suddenly mean they must give up their life for yours?
He chose to become a soldier, so what?

The little I have heard of how a modern soldier from a free western style democracy is trained is that he is taught that he may disobey orders if he deems the orders to be immoral. The corollary is that, as for the conscientious off-duty policeman or medic, the soldier will serve those who he recognises to be in need of his help.
So nothing that applies to a soldier doesn’t apply to you or me.

I will help those in need. If I deem it moral.
We can disobey immoral rules and laws.

It is just a choice. Either of us can make it.

What makes soldiers special?

Belinda
Posts: 2706
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:34 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:33 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:12 pm
Logik wrote:
And? The human being made a choice to become a soldier.

Does the training suddenly mean they must give up their life for yours?
He chose to become a soldier, so what?

The little I have heard of how a modern soldier from a free western style democracy is trained is that he is taught that he may disobey orders if he deems the orders to be immoral. The corollary is that, as for the conscientious off-duty policeman or medic, the soldier will serve those who he recognises to be in need of his help.
So nothing that applies to a soldier doesn’t apply to you or me.

I will help those in need. If I deem it moral.
We can disobey immoral rules and laws.

It is just a choice. Either of us can make it.

What makes soldiers special?
I think that people who have been trained to help others are better off than people who have not had that specific training. The impulse to help others may or may not be an inherent impulse however the impulse to help others is all the more ready when it has been rehearsed.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:35 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:34 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:33 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:12 pm
Logik wrote:



He chose to become a soldier, so what?

The little I have heard of how a modern soldier from a free western style democracy is trained is that he is taught that he may disobey orders if he deems the orders to be immoral. The corollary is that, as for the conscientious off-duty policeman or medic, the soldier will serve those who he recognises to be in need of his help.
So nothing that applies to a soldier doesn’t apply to you or me.

I will help those in need. If I deem it moral.
We can disobey immoral rules and laws.

It is just a choice. Either of us can make it.

What makes soldiers special?
I think that people who have been trained to help others are better off than people who have not had that specific training. The impulse to help others may or may not be an inherent impulse however the impulse to help others is all the more ready when it has been rehearsed.
So if you want to help people then rehearse that instinct.

It is just a choice.

Belinda
Posts: 2706
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:59 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:35 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:34 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:33 pm

So nothing that applies to a soldier doesn’t apply to you or me.

I will help those in need. If I deem it moral.
We can disobey immoral rules and laws.

It is just a choice. Either of us can make it.

What makes soldiers special?
I think that people who have been trained to help others are better off than people who have not had that specific training. The impulse to help others may or may not be an inherent impulse however the impulse to help others is all the more ready when it has been rehearsed.
So if you want to help people then rehearse that instinct.

It is just a choice.
Yes. What has this to do with making morality objective or not?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:09 pm

Morality it not a universal, it's a human concept, as each individual decides what they want for themselves, and so by definition is is subjective.

However, to ensure one is not tread upon by another, humanity has many times addressed the issue with thoughts of equality, at least in one case coined as "The Golden Rule." It seeks to create a universal rule by which all are served equally. However philosophers have found fault with it's capability in considering everyone's needs, wants and desires. They found that various levels of knowledge through individual experience, are not fully addressed.

So I came up with a version I call "The Fundamental Social Axiom." (I have a problem with the archaic/antiquated notion of gold as being supreme, it's so base after all, so it's been removed). As far as I can tell, it's the most objective bit or morality that can be stated in so few words.

It is:

"Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties, knowingly agree, at that time."

So it requires communication, which in and of itself, could be considered a transgression, depending upon the individual in question. But It's the best that can be achieved by the current level of corporal beings. If we could read, (know), one another's minds, (a true collective) there would be no requirement to negotiate morality from subjectivity to objectivity; its universal status. Notice that in addition it realizes that no-one can consider the knowledge that time illuminates, so the future cannot be considered in the moral negotiation of now.

If anyone has anything to add to it, please do.

Belinda
Posts: 2706
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:24 pm

SpheresofBalance wrote:
Morality it not a universal, it's a human concept, as each individual decides what they want for themselves, and so by definition is is subjective.
It's actually intersubjective. If there were only one person to consider, oneself, as for instance when that one is alone upon a desert island, there is need for neither moral rules nor fellow feelings.

The lone man on a desert island is an extremely limited case. Sapiens lives in social groups, necessitating instinct for fellow feelings. Human babies need nurturing for a lot longer than babies of other species so families or substitute families are involved in the natural origin of morality.

Not only are moral rules such as SofB presented socially mediated through language , human morality is also based upon genetic origin of fellow feeling.

The growing child is educated either with emphasis upon rules such as the rule that SofB presented (The Golden? Rule) or is educated for consciousness of fellow feeling. I am sure that I support the latter sort of education! Insofar as moral rules are taught there is none better than the Golden? Rule.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:31 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:24 pm
SpheresofBalance wrote:
Morality it not a universal, it's a human concept, as each individual decides what they want for themselves, and so by definition is is subjective.
It's actually intersubjective. If there were only one person to consider, oneself, as for instance when that one is alone upon a desert island, there is need for neither moral rules nor fellow feelings.

The lone man on a desert island is an extremely limited case. Sapiens lives in social groups, necessitating instinct for fellow feelings. Human babies need nurturing for a lot longer than babies of other species so families or substitute families are involved in the natural origin of morality.

Not only are moral rules such as SofB presented socially mediated through language , human morality is also based upon genetic origin of fellow feeling.
I agree with most of what you say, but see that it's epigenetic not genetic that is responsible. So rules that were set in the past, because a version of the 'golden?' rule goes back to at least cuneiform, as evident in such writings. I see that our evolution includes those things that we've learned, that epigenetics plays a large part in human evolution. I see that Darwin was pretty close, but that it's not 'random mutation' that instead it's 'determined change.' That we had then or as yet not 'completely' understood the causals, should not continue to be included in the explanation today, as through further scientific study, they shall eventually be understood fully. It's all to do with this planet, and so it's beings, being a metamorphosis of scattered distribution.

The growing child is educated either with emphasis upon rules such as the rule that SofB presented (The Golden? Rule) or is educated for consciousness of fellow feeling. I am sure that I support the latter sort of education! Insofar as moral rules are taught there is none better than the Golden? Rule.
Here I see that you're trying to split hairs where it's not possible. Your 'consciousness of fellow feeling' sounds grand and mystical, but it's just rule based, since the beginning of animal kind. It's like, "love and miracles out of know where." Oh they're grand lyrics alright, but not very scientifically based. All we are taught from day one are rules, our ABC's, Math, History, every acedemic pursuit are all rule based. It's true that some of the rules are determined, as in, "WE ALL SHALL DIE!" There's absolutely no getting around that one, though it doesn't stop people from trying. And of course all those things we believe we know about the universe. ;-)
And Belinda, whether you realize it or not and/or care to admit it, you're not a real atheist, as indicated by your entertaining mysticism. I believe you're more like me, you're actually agnostic. Like me you see the current belief in mankinds god as probably total BS. But as an agnostic you entertain both camps of belief. And like me you're hopeful that there is a real creator of the universe, that humankind may one day come to know. Like I've said, 'everyone needs, 'supposed,' solid ground to believe in,' though of course I'm simply borrowing from others like we all do, while adding a little of our own spices to the recipe ;-).

Peter Holmes
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:58 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:32 am
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:26 am
No, you misunderstand validity. The 'in any situation' condition is absolutely critical: in any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true. Sorry, but this is basic stuff.
It's so basic and I "misunderstand validity" so much that I can trivially recognise your errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)
In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
Corollary: In any situation in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is false then the argument is INVALID!

And while I "misunderstand the basics" let me point out your circular reasoning:

In any situation how do you assert the truth-value of the premises, without falling for the "begging the question" logical fallacy?

I am not going to bother with the rest of your response until we can agree on logical discourse.
Let me clarify this. You wrote the following: 'To depend on deduction, your premise[s] must be universally true.'

By 'universally true', I take you to mean 'true in all situations'. And you go on to claim that we can't have or know universal truths - so that, in effect, deduction is impossible.

But you also offered the following example of (I assume) deductive validity:

'Premise: All humans are mortal
Premise: Logik is human.
True Conclusion: Logik is mortal.'

So my question is: do you or don't you accept the possibility of deductive validity? Please can you make up your mind?

If you do, then your claim that validity requires that premises are universally true is false. Consider the following.

P1 If splang is spleng, then spling is splong.
P2 Splang is spleng.
C Therefore, spling is splong.

This is deductively valid and complete gibberish. All that validity requires is that the conclusion follows from the premises. The truth-value of the premises is irrelevant - and that's why logic has nothing to say about their truth-value. And it's why an argument can be both valid and unsound.

You ask here: 'In any situation how do you assert the truth-value of the premises, without falling for the "begging the question" logical fallacy?'

As I've explained, there's no need to assert the truth-value of the premises in order to construct a valid argument. That's why the in any situation in which the premises are true condition is crucial. We're talking about validity, not soundness. (I assume you understand the difference.)

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:23 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:58 pm
By 'universally true', I take you to mean 'true in all situations'. And you go on to claim that we can't have or know universal truths - so that, in effect, deduction is impossible.
Holy fucking shit. I have to spell it out for you.

Deductive validity MANDATES unfalsifiability!

The requirement for validity is pretty fucking clear.

The argument is valid IF AND ONLY IF it is IMPOSSIBLE for the premises to be true, but the conclusion to be false.

If it is POSSIBLE for the premises to be true, but the conclusion to be false then you are NOT doing deduction! You are doing induction based on incomplete information. You are working with probabilities!

And so it is not that deduction it is impossible.
Deduction WOULD be possible if you had UNFALSIFIABLE premises!

Do you have any unfalsifiable truths, Peter?
'Premise: All humans are mortal
Premise: Logik is human.
True Conclusion: Logik is mortal.'
If at this point I lived on to 10000 years you are going to have reconsider the validity of this argument!

Either I am not human, or Most, but not all humans are mortal.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:44 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:39 pm

Is anyone having a problem with: MP, MT, DS, Simp, Conj, HS, Add, CD, DN, DeM, Comm, Assoc, Dist, Contra, Impl Exp, Taut, Equiv, Conditional Proof, Indirect Proof, etc?

Peter Holmes
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:45 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:23 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:58 pm
By 'universally true', I take you to mean 'true in all situations'. And you go on to claim that we can't have or know universal truths - so that, in effect, deduction is impossible.
Holy fucking shit. I have to spell it out for you.

Deductive validity MANDATES unfalsifiability!
What are you talking about? Here's a deductively valid argument:

P1 If splang is spleng, then spling is splong.
P2 Splang is spleng.
C Therefore, spling is splong.

Do you think any of those assertions is unfalsifiable? What are you smoking? Must be good.

The requirement for validity is pretty fucking clear.

The argument is valid IF AND ONLY IF it is IMPOSSIBLE for the premises to be true, but the conclusion to be false.

And so it is not that deduction it is impossible.
Deduction WOULD be possible if you had UNFALSIFIABLE premises!
Validity has nothing to do with the truth-value of premises, so falsifiability is irrelevant. You've got this all inside out.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:50 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:45 pm
Logik wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:23 pm
Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:58 pm
By 'universally true', I take you to mean 'true in all situations'. And you go on to claim that we can't have or know universal truths - so that, in effect, deduction is impossible.
Holy fucking shit. I have to spell it out for you.

Deductive validity MANDATES unfalsifiability!
What are you talking about? Here's a deductively valid argument:

P1 If splang is spleng, then spling is splong.
P2 Splang is spleng.
C Therefore, spling is splong.

Do you think any of those assertions is unfalsifiable? What are you smoking? Must be good.

The requirement for validity is pretty fucking clear.

The argument is valid IF AND ONLY IF it is IMPOSSIBLE for the premises to be true, but the conclusion to be false.

And so it is not that deduction it is impossible.
Deduction WOULD be possible if you had UNFALSIFIABLE premises!
Validity has nothing to do with the truth-value of premises, so falsifiability is irrelevant. You've got this all inside out.
Try plugging in real world examples instead of the spleng, splang, splong spling language. I think it is a much better way to prove ones point. You?

Q: Why do people always try and speak in terms of logic with symbols instead of proving a point by plugging in real world concepts?
Possible A: Because they're incapable? Or fear appearing a fool using invalid propositions and/or false conclusions?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:20 pm

Peter Holmes wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:45 pm
What are you talking about? Here's a deductively valid argument:

P1 If splang is spleng, then spling is splong.
P2 Splang is spleng.
C Therefore, spling is splong.
Peter, that is the structure of an IDEALISED deductive argument. That is what deductively valid arguments look like in a textbook.

If there is non-zero possibility that P1 and P2 are ASSERTED to be true yet C is empirically verified to be false then this is NOT deduction and it is NOT valid.

Deductive validity (which mandates absolute certainty) and falsifiability are INCOMPATIBLE.

Some would say that this is the fundamental difference between philosophy and science.
Last edited by Logik on Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:19 am, edited 5 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:52 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:50 pm
Q: Why do people always try and speak in terms of logic with symbols instead of proving a point by plugging in real world concepts?
Possible A: Because they're incapable? Or fear appearing a fool using invalid propositions and/or false conclusions?
Possibility C: Mistaking inductive for deductive reasoning.

Never attribute to malice that can be easily explained by ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true Instead of being valid or invalid inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true. Another crucial difference is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic systems, such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.

Belinda
Posts: 2706
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Belinda » Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:05 pm

SpheresofBalance, you are right that I'm not a real atheist but am becoming more Platonic week by week. I call myself an atheist when I talk to some people for whom God is a set of rules.

By "consciousness of fellow feeling" , which is a clumsy phrase, I mean feelings of affection in my body which often change the expression on my face and the way I move my body. These feelings can give rise to remorse if I deny them. The Golden? Rule, if I don't obey it makes me feel guilty,but not remorseful. Well founded as it is the Golden? Rule is just a rule.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest