Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

taking aim at objective morality

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 5:44:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I could put this argument in a syllogism, but it's a lot easier for people to manufacture a "problem" where there isn't one...simplicity always invites misunderstanding. The reason why I refuse to believe in objective morality, in long form:

The only absolutes are the laws that are intractable and the truths that do not necessitate a will and shall be obeyed involuntarily. You have no choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of nature...but you do have a physical choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of ethics. For this reason, ethical laws are fundamentally different from the laws of nature. Ethical laws are tied by rationality...and require some sort of warrant. "X is preferable to Y" is a statement that requires justification in order to hold validity. "You ought to do X" is a statement that requires a reason....and if such statements are not predicated on reason the enactment or avocation of them must be considered irrational.

Where the object of our debate is to find the most rational position, this kind of irrationality must be untenable and unacceptable.

However, in the case that you do provide a reason to your objective moral proposition....it immediately becomes relative. An ethical reason is a predicate, a foundation for something that follows. And the objectivity of that ethical claim that follows is wholly contingent on the objectivity of the ethical reason. YET this leads to infinity! You say, one ought not steal. Why? Because XYZ.....Why is XYZ good/bad?......because ABC......Why is ABC good/bad? Because NOP....et cetera,...this collapses into a meaningless continuum. The only thing that prevents ethical reasons from being meaningless is their subjective grounding. Eventually my subjective opinion overlaps with yours and I say, yes, ABC is indeed a consequence I subjectively view as negative, therefore I will abide by the ethical proposition you purport. If you attempt to deny this subjective basis, and continue searching for objective reasons, you will never fully rationalize the claim...because the search for reasons goes ad infinitum. If ever you stop and say "that's all the reason you need", then really you've left us a reasonless claim, which, as per the preceding paragraph must be rejected as warrantless!

The logical ultimatum, therefore, is to go without reason and have the moral proposition be rejected on logically just grounds,....or go with reason and have the moral proposition be relative. No where does logic permit objective morality. No where.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 5:46:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:01:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not really. You're assuming that any reason whatsoever will necessarily be contingent. But that doesn't really make sense when taken in the context of your point regarding rationality (that ethical rules will have to be in accordance with reason). Reason itself isn't predicated on anything else since the laws of logic are supposed to be necessary truths.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:02:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
However, in the case that you do provide a reason to your objective moral proposition....it immediately becomes relative.

I think you're confusing the term "relative." It becomes contingent on its supporting reasons.

An ethical reason is a predicate, a foundation for something that follows. And the objectivity of that ethical claim that follows is wholly contingent on the objectivity of the ethical reason. YET this leads to infinity! You say, one ought not steal. Why? Because XYZ.....Why is XYZ good/bad?......because ABC......Why is ABC good/bad? Because NOP....et cetera,...this collapses into a meaningless continuum.

Ah yes, the regression problem. This is a scenario with reason in general not just ethics. You don't avoid this by doubting, as I can just ask what grounds you have for doubting. This regression doesn't lead anywhere, never mind the certainties of the skeptic.

If you attempt to deny this subjective basis, and continue searching for objective reasons, you will never fully rationalize the claim...because the search for reasons goes ad infinitum. If ever you stop and say "that's all the reason you need", then really you've left us a reasonless claim, which, as per the preceding paragraph must be rejected as warrantless!

You can't really rationalize moral claims on a subjective basis.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:19:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:02:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
However, in the case that you do provide a reason to your objective moral proposition....it immediately becomes relative.

I think you're confusing the term "relative." It becomes contingent on its supporting reasons.

An ethical reason is a predicate, a foundation for something that follows. And the objectivity of that ethical claim that follows is wholly contingent on the objectivity of the ethical reason. YET this leads to infinity! You say, one ought not steal. Why? Because XYZ.....Why is XYZ good/bad?......because ABC......Why is ABC good/bad? Because NOP....et cetera,...this collapses into a meaningless continuum.

Ah yes, the regression problem. This is a scenario with reason in general not just ethics. You don't avoid this by doubting, as I can just ask what grounds you have for doubting. This regression doesn't lead anywhere, never mind the certainties of the skeptic.

Yeah, bu ethical claims are the only propositions that require reasons! So, it is indeed a problem with objective ethics only.

You don't "justify" that 1+1=2 with reasons, you "corroborate" it with evidence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:21:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah, bu ethical claims are the only propositions that require reasons! So, it is indeed a problem with objective ethics only.

Why? See what I did there.

You don't "justify" that 1+1=2 with reasons, you "corroborate" it with evidence.

You know 1+1=2 from experience? Really?
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:24:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:19:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:02:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
However, in the case that you do provide a reason to your objective moral proposition....it immediately becomes relative.

I think you're confusing the term "relative." It becomes contingent on its supporting reasons.

An ethical reason is a predicate, a foundation for something that follows. And the objectivity of that ethical claim that follows is wholly contingent on the objectivity of the ethical reason. YET this leads to infinity! You say, one ought not steal. Why? Because XYZ.....Why is XYZ good/bad?......because ABC......Why is ABC good/bad? Because NOP....et cetera,...this collapses into a meaningless continuum.

Ah yes, the regression problem. This is a scenario with reason in general not just ethics. You don't avoid this by doubting, as I can just ask what grounds you have for doubting. This regression doesn't lead anywhere, never mind the certainties of the skeptic.

Yeah, bu ethical claims are the only propositions that require reasons! So, it is indeed a problem with objective ethics only.

You don't "justify" that 1+1=2 with reasons, you "corroborate" it with evidence.

I'm so tempted to sig this.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:25:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:22:01 PM, TUF wrote:
I agree with the OP.

You're a nihilist?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:21:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Yeah, bu ethical claims are the only propositions that require reasons! So, it is indeed a problem with objective ethics only.

Why? See what I did there.

but your question is illogical. ex) Logic is objective....Why?....because it just is, it's the observable and in many senses intuitively understood nature of the universe and yet you're asking me to generate and ascribe a reason to an involuntary truth. There is no "reason" why ethical claims are the only things that require reasons...but there is logical proof that such is the case. Therefore your question of "why?" doesn't make any sense,...your question should be "how?".

You don't "justify" that 1+1=2 with reasons, you "corroborate" it with evidence.

You know 1+1=2 from experience? Really?

There's a difference between "Why should I believe that 1+1=2?" and "Why is 1+1 equal to 2". I think you maybe conflating the two.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:28:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:26:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:21:37 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Yeah, bu ethical claims are the only propositions that require reasons! So, it is indeed a problem with objective ethics only.

Why? See what I did there.

but your question is illogical. ex) Logic is objective....Why?....because it just is, it's the observable and in many senses intuitively understood nature of the universe and yet you're asking me to generate and ascribe a reason to an involuntary truth. There is no "reason" why ethical claims are the only things that require reasons...but there is logical proof that such is the case. Therefore your question of "why?" doesn't make any sense,...your question should be "how?".

You don't "justify" that 1+1=2 with reasons, you "corroborate" it with evidence.

You know 1+1=2 from experience? Really?

There's a difference between "Why should I believe that 1+1=2?" and "Why is 1+1 equal to 2". I think you maybe conflating the two.

oh wow what an idiotic mistake.

the second question should be "HOW is 1+1 equal to 2?"
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:31:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:01:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Not really. You're assuming that any reason whatsoever will necessarily be contingent. But that doesn't really make sense when taken in the context of your point regarding rationality (that ethical rules will have to be in accordance with reason). Reason itself isn't predicated on anything else since the laws of logic are supposed to be necessary truths.

Hello?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:33:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
but your question is illogical. ex) Logic is objective....Why?....because it just is, it's the observable and in many senses intuitively understood nature of the universe and yet you're asking me to generate and ascribe a reason to an involuntary truth.

And I can't claim this with ethics because you just don't feel the same way. Your chain of reasoning seems to end with something being self-evident, and I have similar views towards ethics.

but there is logical proof that such is the case. Therefore your question of "why?" doesn't make any sense,...your question should be "how?".

IMO you have a habit of using the term "logic" in a very expansive sense. Do you mean reason, or do you mean classical logic? You just deny that ethics, like the laws of logic, are grounded in any kind of self-evident and intuitive sense.

Another thing, you use both 'observable' and 'intuitive' here and when I used these words in an ethical discussion you just described them as subjective. So technically if we carry that over I could just claim the laws of logic are subjective.

There's a difference between "Why should I believe that 1+1=2?" and "Why is 1+1 equal to 2". I think you maybe conflating the two.

I don't think either is known a posteriori.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:35:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:31:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:01:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Not really. You're assuming that any reason whatsoever will necessarily be contingent. But that doesn't really make sense when taken in the context of your point regarding rationality (that ethical rules will have to be in accordance with reason). Reason itself isn't predicated on anything else since the laws of logic are supposed to be necessary truths.

Hello?

I think you're equivocating reason (as in logic) and reason (as in warrant), so I'm having difficulty seeing where your argument follows.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:33:23 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
but your question is illogical. ex) Logic is objective....Why?....because it just is, it's
There's a difference between "Why should I believe that 1+1=2?" and "Why is 1+1 equal to 2". I think you maybe conflating the two.

I don't think either is known a posteriori.

Lol, Iknorite. A priori ftw.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:38:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:35:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:31:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:01:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Not really. You're assuming that any reason whatsoever will necessarily be contingent. But that doesn't really make sense when taken in the context of your point regarding rationality (that ethical rules will have to be in accordance with reason). Reason itself isn't predicated on anything else since the laws of logic are supposed to be necessary truths.

Hello?

I think you're equivocating reason (as in logic) and reason (as in warrant), so I'm having difficulty seeing where your argument follows.

What I'm saying is that if I give you a reason for so and so that has its basis in logic itself then you can't really say that that reason would be contingent on anything since the laws of logic themselves are conceived as being necessarily existent as opposed to contingently.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:49:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:38:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:35:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:31:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:01:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Not really. You're assuming that any reason whatsoever will necessarily be contingent. But that doesn't really make sense when taken in the context of your point regarding rationality (that ethical rules will have to be in accordance with reason). Reason itself isn't predicated on anything else since the laws of logic are supposed to be necessary truths.

Hello?

I think you're equivocating reason (as in logic) and reason (as in warrant), so I'm having difficulty seeing where your argument follows.

What I'm saying is that if I give you a reason for so and so that has its basis in logic itself then you can't really say that that reason would be contingent on anything since the laws of logic themselves are conceived as being necessarily existent as opposed to contingently.

I see,...but that's still not really a valid refutation. It's impossible to form a reason based in logic for a moral question. Before you crucify me, let me explain. For example, if you claim that lying is immoral because it is ultimately contradictory, then that leaves the question of why should I not be contradictory? The nature of logic is impersonal and absolute. Logic cannot tell you what you ought to do. It can only tell you what you ought to do pursuant of a certain end. So your objection about how morality can be based in logical laws is wrong from the get-go.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:57:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:33:23 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
but your question is illogical. ex) Logic is objective....Why?....because it just is, it's the observable and in many senses intuitively understood nature of the universe and yet you're asking me to generate and ascribe a reason to an involuntary truth.

And I can't claim this with ethics because you just don't feel the same way. Your chain of reasoning seems to end with something being self-evident, and I have similar views towards ethics.

But logic isn't objective only because it's evident a priori....but because it also has a visible empirical basis outside of the confines of the human mind, and can be observed by everyone in its own objective nature..and not the nature that our minds have ascribed to it.

Morality is not something we all see outside of our minds in an objectively visible nature. Unlike the way 2 oranges and another 2 oranges WILL amount to 4 oranges,...rightness and wrongness have no visible manifestation beyond the abstract.

So your feelings about ethics being self evident and everything, is not the same as my feeling about logic being self evident....simply because my "feeling" extends into a visible reality.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:02:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You have no choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of nature...but you do have a physical choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of ethics
I can choose what amount of gravity I am subjected to, by altering my weight or going into space.

I can choose whether ethics apply to me, by choosing a goal or not choosing a goal.

I can choose whether the law of evolution will ever again operate upon me to produce products, by castrating myself or not doing so.

The things remain objective-- they exist in the relation between the subject and the object. They are not intrinsic, existing in the object alone; nor are they subjective, existing in the subject alone.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:03:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:49:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:38:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:35:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:31:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:01:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Not really. You're assuming that any reason whatsoever will necessarily be contingent. But that doesn't really make sense when taken in the context of your point regarding rationality (that ethical rules will have to be in accordance with reason). Reason itself isn't predicated on anything else since the laws of logic are supposed to be necessary truths.

Hello?

I think you're equivocating reason (as in logic) and reason (as in warrant), so I'm having difficulty seeing where your argument follows.

What I'm saying is that if I give you a reason for so and so that has its basis in logic itself then you can't really say that that reason would be contingent on anything since the laws of logic themselves are conceived as being necessarily existent as opposed to contingently.

I see,...but that's still not really a valid refutation. It's impossible to form a reason based in logic for a moral question. Before you crucify me, let me explain. For example, if you claim that lying is immoral because it is ultimately contradictory, then that leaves the question of why should I not be contradictory? The nature of logic is impersonal and absolute. Logic cannot tell you what you ought to do. It can only tell you what you ought to do pursuant of a certain end. So your objection about how morality can be based in logical laws is wrong from the get-go.

You can't really use that in an argument though. In order to argue you generally have to assume logic and reason and all that. So saying "There's nothing wrong with being contradictory" doesn't work as far as arguments are concerned. So as far as communicative propositions are concerned logic and reason *are* the boundaries. But that's kind of the same situation one gets into with solipsism. You can think that no one is real but you can't argue for it since arguing presupposes someone to argue with.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:08:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:02:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You have no choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of nature...but you do have a physical choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of ethics
I can choose what amount of gravity I am subjected to, by altering my weight or going into space.

No....all you're doing is utilizing other laws of physics toward a certain end. Reducing your weight =/= circumventing the laws of physics. You can't circumvent the laws of physics. Period.... notice how no one else made this "objection". Why? Because they know it's nonsense.

I can choose whether ethics apply to me, by choosing a goal or not choosing a goal.

I can choose whether the law of evolution will ever again operate upon me to produce products, by castrating myself or not doing so.

The things remain objective-- they exist in the relation between the subject and the object. They are not intrinsic, existing in the object alone; nor are they subjective, existing in the subject alone.

you're not getting the point at all....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:10:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:03:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:49:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:38:27 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:35:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:31:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:01:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Not really. You're assuming that any reason whatsoever will necessarily be contingent. But that doesn't really make sense when taken in the context of your point regarding rationality (that ethical rules will have to be in accordance with reason). Reason itself isn't predicated on anything else since the laws of logic are supposed to be necessary truths.

Hello?

I think you're equivocating reason (as in logic) and reason (as in warrant), so I'm having difficulty seeing where your argument follows.

What I'm saying is that if I give you a reason for so and so that has its basis in logic itself then you can't really say that that reason would be contingent on anything since the laws of logic themselves are conceived as being necessarily existent as opposed to contingently.

I see,...but that's still not really a valid refutation. It's impossible to form a reason based in logic for a moral question. Before you crucify me, let me explain. For example, if you claim that lying is immoral because it is ultimately contradictory, then that leaves the question of why should I not be contradictory? The nature of logic is impersonal and absolute. Logic cannot tell you what you ought to do. It can only tell you what you ought to do pursuant of a certain end. So your objection about how morality can be based in logical laws is wrong from the get-go.

You can't really use that in an argument though. In order to argue you generally have to assume logic and reason and all that. So saying "There's nothing wrong with being contradictory" doesn't work as far as arguments are concerned. So as far as communicative propositions are concerned logic and reason *are* the boundaries. But that's kind of the same situation one gets into with solipsism. You can think that no one is real but you can't argue for it since arguing presupposes someone to argue with.

ah, so despite its truth, I can't say that it is true without engaging in a contradiction. While that deals with the discourse in itself it doesn't really deal with reality, so what's its ultimate relevance?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:13:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Objective morals are embedded in nature. End of.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:14:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:10:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 7:03:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:49:53 PM, 000ike wrote:

I see,...but that's still not really a valid refutation. It's impossible to form a reason based in logic for a moral question. Before you crucify me, let me explain. For example, if you claim that lying is immoral because it is ultimately contradictory, then that leaves the question of why should I not be contradictory? The nature of logic is impersonal and absolute. Logic cannot tell you what you ought to do. It can only tell you what you ought to do pursuant of a certain end. So your objection about how morality can be based in logical laws is wrong from the get-go.

You can't really use that in an argument though. In order to argue you generally have to assume logic and reason and all that. So saying "There's nothing wrong with being contradictory" doesn't work as far as arguments are concerned. So as far as communicative propositions are concerned logic and reason *are* the boundaries. But that's kind of the same situation one gets into with solipsism. You can think that no one is real but you can't argue for it since arguing presupposes someone to argue with.

ah, so despite its truth, I can't say that it is true without engaging in a contradiction. While that deals with the discourse in itself it doesn't really deal with reality, so what's its ultimate relevance?

I think it makes an important point regarding knowledge of reality itself. If there are ethical truths that don't conform to our own rules of language then we can never successfully argue for them and if I really am the only person in existence then I can never argumentatively justify it. An interesting quandary in itself I suppose.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:15:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:13:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Objective morals are embedded in nature. End of.

If you don't respond to,...or even read what the other side has to say, why bother posting anything? We're supposed to have a reasonable dialogue, not assert things without proof and without addressing your opponents arguments.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:16:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:08:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 7:02:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You have no choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of nature...but you do have a physical choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of ethics
I can choose what amount of gravity I am subjected to, by altering my weight or going into space.

No....all you're doing is utilizing other laws of physics toward a certain end. Reducing your weight =/= circumventing the laws of physics.
Just as reducing your goals =/= circumventing the laws of ethics. It means not caring about them as much, just as reducing your weight means you care less about gravity.

I can choose whether ethics apply to me, by choosing a goal or not choosing a goal.

I can choose whether the law of evolution will ever again operate upon me to produce products, by castrating myself or not doing so.

The things remain objective-- they exist in the relation between the subject and the object. They are not intrinsic, existing in the object alone; nor are they subjective, existing in the subject alone.

you're not getting the point at all....
Then your point must have nothing to do with objective morality.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:46:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 6:57:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:33:23 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
but your question is illogical. ex) Logic is objective....Why?....because it just is, it's the observable and in many senses intuitively understood nature of the universe and yet you're asking me to generate and ascribe a reason to an involuntary truth.

And I can't claim this with ethics because you just don't feel the same way. Your chain of reasoning seems to end with something being self-evident, and I have similar views towards ethics.

But logic isn't objective only because it's evident a priori....but because it also has a visible empirical basis outside of the confines of the human mind, and can be observed by everyone in its own objective nature..and not the nature that our minds have ascribed to it.

Morality is not something we all see outside of our minds in an objectively visible nature. Unlike the way 2 oranges and another 2 oranges WILL amount to 4 oranges,...rightness and wrongness have no visible manifestation beyond the abstract.

So your feelings about ethics being self evident and everything, is not the same as my feeling about logic being self evident....simply because my "feeling" extends into a visible reality.

Ike, I hate to break it to you - but you don't experience logic empirically. Lets just go with something simple like "A or not A." So, lets say an object cannot be both red and green all over. How do you prove that empirically? Do you go around showing me boxes that are not red and green all over? How many boxes would it take?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:57:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:46:07 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:57:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/20/2012 6:33:23 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
but your question is illogical. ex) Logic is objective....Why?....because it just is, it's the observable and in many senses intuitively understood nature of the universe and yet you're asking me to generate and ascribe a reason to an involuntary truth.

And I can't claim this with ethics because you just don't feel the same way. Your chain of reasoning seems to end with something being self-evident, and I have similar views towards ethics.

But logic isn't objective only because it's evident a priori....but because it also has a visible empirical basis outside of the confines of the human mind, and can be observed by everyone in its own objective nature..and not the nature that our minds have ascribed to it.

Morality is not something we all see outside of our minds in an objectively visible nature. Unlike the way 2 oranges and another 2 oranges WILL amount to 4 oranges,...rightness and wrongness have no visible manifestation beyond the abstract.

So your feelings about ethics being self evident and everything, is not the same as my feeling about logic being self evident....simply because my "feeling" extends into a visible reality.

Ike, I hate to break it to you - but you don't experience logic empirically. Lets just go with something simple like "A or not A." So, lets say an object cannot be both red and green all over. How do you prove that empirically? Do you go around showing me boxes that are not red and green all over? How many boxes would it take?

You do in fact experience logic. You can tell that the apple is not green and red simultaneously because all you see is 1 color....1+1 is visibly demonstrable. Where do you think logic is derived? If logic is in fact mostly intuitive, then evolution is responsible, and it's based on what information was extrapolated from our immediate environment. Logic is reality converted into abstraction. Morality has no base reality....it's just an abstraction. That's the difference. That's why your moral feelings don't have objective authority but your logical feelings do.

Morality, if anything, came from natural selection...an inherent perception that would increase the survival of the societies that held it...thus making those genes responsible prevail. This, however, does not translate into objective truth.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 8:09:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 5:44:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
I could put this argument in a syllogism, but it's a lot easier for people to manufacture a "problem" where there isn't one...simplicity always invites misunderstanding. The reason why I refuse to believe in objective morality, in long form:

The only absolutes are the laws that are intractable and the truths that do not necessitate a will and shall be obeyed involuntarily. You have no choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of nature...but you do have a physical choice in the matter of being subject to the laws of ethics. For this reason, ethical laws are fundamentally different from the laws of nature. Ethical laws are tied by rationality...and require some sort of warrant. "X is preferable to Y" is a statement that requires justification in order to hold validity. "You ought to do X" is a statement that requires a reason....and if such statements are not predicated on reason the enactment or avocation of them must be considered irrational.

Where the object of our debate is to find the most rational position, this kind of irrationality must be untenable and unacceptable.

However, in the case that you do provide a reason to your objective moral proposition....it immediately becomes relative. An ethical reason is a predicate, a foundation for something that follows. And the objectivity of that ethical claim that follows is wholly contingent on the objectivity of the ethical reason. YET this leads to infinity! You say, one ought not steal. Why? Because XYZ.....Why is XYZ good/bad?......because ABC......Why is ABC good/bad? Because NOP....et cetera,...this collapses into a meaningless continuum. The only thing that prevents ethical reasons from being meaningless is their subjective grounding. Eventually my subjective opinion overlaps with yours and I say, yes, ABC is indeed a consequence I subjectively view as negative, therefore I will abide by the ethical proposition you purport. If you attempt to deny this subjective basis, and continue searching for objective reasons, you will never fully rationalize the claim...because the search for reasons goes ad infinitum. If ever you stop and say "that's all the reason you need", then really you've left us a reasonless claim, which, as per the preceding paragraph must be rejected as warrantless!

The logical ultimatum, therefore, is to go without reason and have the moral proposition be rejected on logically just grounds,....or go with reason and have the moral proposition be relative. No where does logic permit objective morality. No where.

I believe you are creating a false dichotomy between moral relativism and moral absolutism, these are merely two of a dozen or so different ethical philosophies.

Emanuel Kant's concept of the Categorical Imperative (CI) is neither absolute nor morally relativistic. Likewise you have utilitarianism, consequentialism, and moral universalism to name a few others.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 8:09:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let me see if I understand this straight. The OP is presenting an assessment of good/evil, right/wrong, yes/no, etc. as thought there are no clear distinctions.

I can explain to you why stealing is wrong, and it won't lead to an endless continuum. It would just end, because I would have explained it. The short of it is that stealing is parasitism, whereas the ideal social state is cooperative.

I'm sure a lot of members of this site could do the same... it's not a really daunting question, why stealing is wrong. It's not meta-ethical, nor metaphysical -- not even theological. It's purely rational and completely pragmatic.