Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Infinite regress problem

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 5:03:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In response to the argument that objective morality leads to infinite regress, some people pointed out that the regress is a universal epistemic problem and also involves subjective morality, so by comparison the argument yields no palpable significance. But, I'd like to dispute that.

This is the regress for objective morality: why is lying wrong? Because it"s unfair to others. Why is it wrong to be unfair? Because you would not will that others be unfair to you. Why does it matter that I would not will that? Because it means you"re being inconsistent. Why is it wrong to be inconsistent? etc...

This is the regress for subjective morality: According to 000ike, stealing is wrong. (note that the statement is descriptively subjective, and offers no moral advice that is in its nature irrespective of a subject) How do you know that? Because I read somewhere that he believes stealing is wrong. How can you be so sure your reading is correct? Because my perception is correct. How can you be so sure your perception is correct? etc....

The regress in objective morality relies on uncertainty of reason, whereas the regress in subjective morality relies on uncertainty of evidence. However, the certainty of evidence was already presumed at the outset of the argument. In order for anyone to debate anything, he first of all presumes that his visual perception and senses are correct (permitting for inductive reasoning) then he assumes that his sense of logic is correct (permitting for deductive reasoning). Therefore, you cannot, in mid-argument, contest the accuracy of logic or the accuracy of general human perception, because that would collapse the predicates of argumentation itself. So when you say that subjective morality leads to infinite regress because we can't prove that the subjective claim is true, you're implicitly or sometimes explicitly contesting the validity of the predicate that allowed you to make the argument in the first place. So the whole thing becomes self-defeating.

That said, no such problems arise when we contest the truth of objective moral claims....leaving them, by default, the more irrational of 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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 5:08:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 5:03:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
In response to the argument that objective morality leads to infinite regress, some people pointed out that the regress is a universal epistemic problem and also involves subjective morality, so by comparison the argument yields no palpable significance. But, I'd like to dispute that.

This is the regress for objective morality: why is lying wrong? Because it"s unfair to others. Why is it wrong to be unfair? Because you would not will that others be unfair to you. Why does it matter that I would not will that? Because it means you"re being inconsistent. Why is it wrong to be inconsistent? etc...

This is the regress for subjective morality: According to 000ike, stealing is wrong. (note that the statement is descriptively subjective, and offers no moral advice that is in its nature irrespective of a subject) How do you know that? Because I read somewhere that he believes stealing is wrong. How can you be so sure your reading is correct? Because my perception is correct. How can you be so sure your perception is correct? etc....

The regress in objective morality relies on uncertainty of reason, whereas the regress in subjective morality relies on uncertainty of evidence. However, the certainty of evidence was already presumed at the outset of the argument. In order for anyone to debate anything, he first of all presumes that his visual perception and senses are correct (permitting for inductive reasoning) then he assumes that his sense of logic is correct (permitting for deductive reasoning). Therefore, you cannot, in mid-argument, contest the accuracy of logic or the accuracy of general human perception, because that would collapse the predicates of argumentation itself. So when you say that subjective morality leads to infinite regress because we can't prove that the subjective claim is true, you're implicitly or sometimes explicitly contesting the validity of the predicate that allowed you to make the argument in the first place. So the whole thing becomes self-defeating.

That said, no such problems arise when we contest the truth of objective moral claims....leaving them, by default, the more irrational of the two.

Isn't this "infinite regress problem" as it's presented applicable to any possible truth?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 5:09:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
However, the certainty of evidence was already presumed at the outset of the argument. In order for anyone to debate anything, he first of all presumes that his visual perception and senses are correct (permitting for inductive reasoning) then he assumes that his sense of logic is correct (permitting for deductive reasoning).

I'm not sure whether you understand the idea of infinite regress, it's ultimately just asking "why?" after everything so that nothing is beyond doubt. By the way, every rational person believes in describe moral relativism. It's not really up for dispute. But the problem with the infinite regress objection is that anything you claim to derive a conclusion from the process of IR the process continually doubts itself.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 5:28:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 5:09:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
However, the certainty of evidence was already presumed at the outset of the argument. In order for anyone to debate anything, he first of all presumes that his visual perception and senses are correct (permitting for inductive reasoning) then he assumes that his sense of logic is correct (permitting for deductive reasoning).

I'm not sure whether you understand the idea of infinite regress, it's ultimately just asking "why?" after everything so that nothing is beyond doubt. By the way, every rational person believes in describe moral relativism. It's not really up for dispute. But the problem with the infinite regress objection is that anything you claim to derive a conclusion from the process of IR the process continually doubts itself.

IR is dependent on doubt is it not? So, there are things you can doubt, and others you can choose not to doubt. The object of our doubt is not to find some base truth, but simply to find the most rational position. I understand that in reality, all things are up for doubt, and all things are uncertain, but that isn't the case in argumentation, and regular human operation. It is necessary that we assume logic and perception are both correct in order for us to be intellectually operable. So all doubt which leads to question those predicates are outside the scope of practical reason. It is for this reason that I say doubting a descriptively subjective moral claim is less rational that doubting an objective moral claim.

You say that descriptive subjectivism is beyond dispute, but there were people that were disputing it in order to claim that the regress argument is equally as applicable to it as it is to objective morality.
"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
10/31/2012 5:43:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 5:08:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 10/31/2012 5:03:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
In response to the argument that objective morality leads to infinite regress, some people pointed out that the regress is a universal epistemic problem and also involves subjective morality, so by comparison the argument yields no palpable significance. But, I'd like to dispute that.

This is the regress for objective morality: why is lying wrong? Because it"s unfair to others. Why is it wrong to be unfair? Because you would not will that others be unfair to you. Why does it matter that I would not will that? Because it means you"re being inconsistent. Why is it wrong to be inconsistent? etc...

This is the regress for subjective morality: According to 000ike, stealing is wrong. (note that the statement is descriptively subjective, and offers no moral advice that is in its nature irrespective of a subject) How do you know that? Because I read somewhere that he believes stealing is wrong. How can you be so sure your reading is correct? Because my perception is correct. How can you be so sure your perception is correct? etc....

The regress in objective morality relies on uncertainty of reason, whereas the regress in subjective morality relies on uncertainty of evidence. However, the certainty of evidence was already presumed at the outset of the argument. In order for anyone to debate anything, he first of all presumes that his visual perception and senses are correct (permitting for inductive reasoning) then he assumes that his sense of logic is correct (permitting for deductive reasoning). Therefore, you cannot, in mid-argument, contest the accuracy of logic or the accuracy of general human perception, because that would collapse the predicates of argumentation itself. So when you say that subjective morality leads to infinite regress because we can't prove that the subjective claim is true, you're implicitly or sometimes explicitly contesting the validity of the predicate that allowed you to make the argument in the first place. So the whole thing becomes self-defeating.

That said, no such problems arise when we contest the truth of objective moral claims....leaving them, by default, the more irrational of the two.

Isn't this "infinite regress problem" as it's presented applicable to any possible truth?

I'm putting it as the "infinite regress problem" as it's presented within the scope of reason, and allowing presuppositions that are necessary. Essentially, we're not looking for any base truth, we're simply looking for the most rational position....which leads to certain assumptions to which the regress would not apply.
"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
10/31/2012 6:14:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 5:28:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 5:09:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
However, the certainty of evidence was already presumed at the outset of the argument. In order for anyone to debate anything, he first of all presumes that his visual perception and senses are correct (permitting for inductive reasoning) then he assumes that his sense of logic is correct (permitting for deductive reasoning).

I'm not sure whether you understand the idea of infinite regress, it's ultimately just asking "why?" after everything so that nothing is beyond doubt. By the way, every rational person believes in describe moral relativism. It's not really up for dispute. But the problem with the infinite regress objection is that anything you claim to derive a conclusion from the process of IR the process continually doubts itself.

IR is dependent on doubt is it not? So, there are things you can doubt, and others you can choose not to doubt. The object of our doubt is not to find some base truth, but simply to find the most rational position. I understand that in reality, all things are up for doubt, and all things are uncertain, but that isn't the case in argumentation, and regular human operation. It is necessary that we assume logic and perception are both correct in order for us to be intellectually operable. So all doubt which leads to question those predicates are outside the scope of practical reason. It is for this reason that I say doubting a descriptively subjective moral claim is less rational that doubting an objective moral claim.

I could choose not to doubt certain things, but the whole idea of the RA is that any proposition can be doubted. I hate to cite wikipedia, but "According to [the IR] argument, any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, like a child who asks "why?" over and over again." So in effect it is doubting any statement that claims to express a truth, which includes descriptive moral relativism. It also includes logic, and you're right, once we deconstruct that there's nothing left to really build from. I don't take the IRA particularly seriously, but there are those on the forum who do. I had a debate with Cody on this subject.

You say that descriptive subjectivism is beyond dispute, but there were people that were disputing it in order to claim that the regress argument is equally as applicable to it as it is to objective morality.

I say that it's "beyond dispute" in the normal sense of the term, with RA you're just doubting everything and it descends into incoherence and you can't form any conclusions.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 6:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Any possible objective moral fact does not stem only from other moral facts but eventually from logic so the regress problem against morality ends up being epistemological anyway.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 6:30:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 6:14:27 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 10/31/2012 5:28:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 5:09:41 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
However, the certainty of evidence was already presumed at the outset of the argument. In order for anyone to debate anything, he first of all presumes that his visual perception and senses are correct (permitting for inductive reasoning) then he assumes that his sense of logic is correct (permitting for deductive reasoning).

I'm not sure whether you understand the idea of infinite regress, it's ultimately just asking "why?" after everything so that nothing is beyond doubt. By the way, every rational person believes in describe moral relativism. It's not really up for dispute. But the problem with the infinite regress objection is that anything you claim to derive a conclusion from the process of IR the process continually doubts itself.

IR is dependent on doubt is it not? So, there are things you can doubt, and others you can choose not to doubt. The object of our doubt is not to find some base truth, but simply to find the most rational position. I understand that in reality, all things are up for doubt, and all things are uncertain, but that isn't the case in argumentation, and regular human operation. It is necessary that we assume logic and perception are both correct in order for us to be intellectually operable. So all doubt which leads to question those predicates are outside the scope of practical reason. It is for this reason that I say doubting a descriptively subjective moral claim is less rational that doubting an objective moral claim.

I could choose not to doubt certain things, but the whole idea of the RA is that any proposition can be doubted. I hate to cite wikipedia, but "According to [the IR] argument, any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, like a child who asks "why?" over and over again." So in effect it is doubting any statement that claims to express a truth, which includes descriptive moral relativism. It also includes logic, and you're right, once we deconstruct that there's nothing left to really build from. I don't take the IRA particularly seriously, but there are those on the forum who do. I had a debate with Cody on this subject.

But we can't take this "all or nothing" sort of mentality when dealing with IR. The object of argumentation and debating isn't to discover some base indisputable truths (because we've long concluded that no such things exist, or no such things are approachable), it's to discover the most rational position. So yes, doubt still has a place under this objective. However, what it does is that it puts a limit to what is reasonably dubitable. That's what my argument is based on. Ultimately, it is within reason to doubt objective morality and have the doubt devolve into a vicious regress,...but it is not within reason to doubt subjective morality, because the predicate you are doubting is a necessary assumption. That's why I say that Objective morality is an irrational position and can be defeated under the regress problem, whereas it would be irrational or unreasonable and ultimately self-defeating to allow subjective morality to be defeated by the same problem,...through questioning necessary assumptions.

You say that descriptive subjectivism is beyond dispute, but there were people that were disputing it in order to claim that the regress argument is equally as applicable to it as it is to objective morality.

I say that it's "beyond dispute" in the normal sense of the term, with RA you're just doubting everything and it descends into incoherence and you can't form any conclusions.
"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
10/31/2012 6:34:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 6:17:17 PM, phantom wrote:
Any possible objective moral fact does not stem only from other moral facts but eventually from logic so the regress problem against morality ends up being epistemological anyway.

How so? I gave you a simulation in the OP of a regress on an objective moral claim. Where in there would pure logic be involved (irrespective of other moral claims)?....It seems to me that logic is the vehicle of the regress, but moral value is the actual content...lending continuous moral justification ad infinitum.
"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
10/31/2012 6:45:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But we can't take this "all or nothing" sort of mentality when dealing with IR. The object of argumentation and debating isn't to discover some base indisputable truths (because we've long concluded that no such things exist, or no such things are approachable), it's to discover the most rational position. So yes, doubt still has a place under this objective. However, what it does is that it puts a limit to what is reasonably dubitable. That's what my argument is based on. Ultimately, it is within reason to doubt objective morality and have the doubt devolve into a vicious regress,...but it is not within reason to doubt subjective morality, because the predicate you are doubting is a necessary assumption. That's why I say that Objective morality is an irrational position and can be defeated under the regress problem, whereas it would be irrational or unreasonable and ultimately self-defeating to allow subjective morality to be defeated by the same problem,...through questioning necessary assumptions.

A few points:

1. Before we even get to this, we should consider whether it's an effective criticism against objective morality. I don't think it is, because no conclusion is reached - you just doubt whatever conclusion is reached because the IRA knows no bounds. I'm talking about the nature of the IRA, not what you personally think is reasonable.

2. Look at my earlier wikipedia quote, the IRA applies to all propositions. Look, I'm not even the one using the IRA but theoretically it could be applied to all propositions. I know you don't like this, but the IRA is as it stands.

3. On subjective morality - descriptive moral subjectivism isn't a normative position, I'm pretty sure everybody agrees with it, except like the solipsists or whoever takes the IRA extremely seriously....I don't feel like going into this, but needless to say it's not a normative position. You're better off ditching the label and just saying you're a moral subjectivist, because DMS is too obvious.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 6:56:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 6:34:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:17:17 PM, phantom wrote:
Any possible objective moral fact does not stem only from other moral facts but eventually from logic so the regress problem against morality ends up being epistemological anyway.

How so? I gave you a simulation in the OP of a regress on an objective moral claim. Where in there would pure logic be involved (irrespective of other moral claims)?....It seems to me that logic is the vehicle of the regress, but moral value is the actual content...lending continuous moral justification ad infinitum.

Everything has to conform to logic. If an objective moral fact exists, let's say we were able to analyze every justification and necessary premise to reaching that moral fact. First you would have to start with logic before you even got into morality. You can only justify morality by using logical facts to prove it. Logic is the groundwork of morality if objective moral facts exists.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 7:01:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 6:45:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
But we can't take this "all or nothing" sort of mentality when dealing with IR. The object of argumentation and debating isn't to discover some base indisputable truths (because we've long concluded that no such things exist, or no such things are approachable), it's to discover the most rational position. So yes, doubt still has a place under this objective. However, what it does is that it puts a limit to what is reasonably dubitable. That's what my argument is based on. Ultimately, it is within reason to doubt objective morality and have the doubt devolve into a vicious regress,...but it is not within reason to doubt subjective morality, because the predicate you are doubting is a necessary assumption. That's why I say that Objective morality is an irrational position and can be defeated under the regress problem, whereas it would be irrational or unreasonable and ultimately self-defeating to allow subjective morality to be defeated by the same problem,...through questioning necessary assumptions.


A few points:

1. Before we even get to this, we should consider whether it's an effective criticism against objective morality. I don't think it is, because no conclusion is reached - you just doubt whatever conclusion is reached because the IRA knows no bounds. I'm talking about the nature of the IRA, not what you personally think is reasonable.

2. Look at my earlier wikipedia quote, the IRA applies to all propositions. Look, I'm not even the one using the IRA but theoretically it could be applied to all propositions. I know you don't like this, but the IRA is as it stands.

But you're not really even addressing the argument I put forth. You're just saying the same thing. When your goal is to find some base truths about the world, the IR is omnipresent....and that's the goal you keep implicitly alluding to (whether you're doing it on purpose or not). That's not the mentality we're operating from though. Our goal here is find the most reasonable position. Finding the most reasonable position does not mean that we doubt nothing. Finding the most reasonable position is that we first of all assume certain facts that provide for us to coherently argue and discuss in the first place....those become the only indubitable assumptions by virtue of their necessity. Everything else is prone to doubt. What happens is that subjective morality is cushioned under those necessary assumptions and thus immune to IR so long as we're finding the most reasonable position. Objective morality, however, falls infinitely with no preestablished base assumption to serve as landing...and thus becomes unreasonable.
"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
10/31/2012 7:05:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
so long as we're finding the most reasonable position. Objective morality, however, falls infinitely with no preestablished base assumption to serve as landing...and thus becomes unreasonable.

There isn't anything for me to address, "reasonable" and "unreasonable" are just your pet words that reinforce your position/worldview. My idea is to challenge that. "Just find the reasonable position" isn't saying anything substantial.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 7:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 7:05:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
so long as we're finding the most reasonable position. Objective morality, however, falls infinitely with no preestablished base assumption to serve as landing...and thus becomes unreasonable.

There isn't anything for me to address, "reasonable" and "unreasonable" are just your pet words that reinforce your position/worldview. My idea is to challenge that. "Just find the reasonable position" isn't saying anything substantial.

What are you talking about? The only possible objective of all argumentation is to find the "most reasonable position". Why? Because if that isn't our objective - if our objective is to find base indisputable truths, then the IR really does comes into play and everything collapses into solipsism or some other version of epistemic nihilism.

Rational positions rested on the exigencies of argumentation are what make all discussions meaningful. If you want to disagree with this, then fine, but that would be the end of this conversation because you would have divested it of any common ground on which to have a coherent interplay of 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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 7:25:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 6:56:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:34:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:17:17 PM, phantom wrote:
Any possible objective moral fact does not stem only from other moral facts but eventually from logic so the regress problem against morality ends up being epistemological anyway.

How so? I gave you a simulation in the OP of a regress on an objective moral claim. Where in there would pure logic be involved (irrespective of other moral claims)?....It seems to me that logic is the vehicle of the regress, but moral value is the actual content...lending continuous moral justification ad infinitum.

Everything has to conform to logic. If an objective moral fact exists, let's say we were able to analyze every justification and necessary premise to reaching that moral fact. First you would have to start with logic before you even got into morality. You can only justify morality by using logical facts to prove it. Logic is the groundwork of morality if objective moral facts exists.

That's definitely true, but it doesn't really address the argument we were just having. You're saying that in the middle of the regress moral statements facts will somehow vanish, and pure logic will enter the picture....Your argument now seems to be that logic will be the justification of morality (which is true,...but does not mean that logic will eventually take over the regress). Lets use an example: lying is wrong.

Lying is wrong will eventually start to reach rational arguments in the process of this regress...e.g "you would not will that others lie to you...it produces a contradiction"...but the following question would be presented thus: "why is it wrong that I am contradicting myself"?

So, see how "other moral facts" are still involved, and will always be involved?
"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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 7:31:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 7:25:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:56:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:34:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:17:17 PM, phantom wrote:
Any possible objective moral fact does not stem only from other moral facts but eventually from logic so the regress problem against morality ends up being epistemological anyway.

How so? I gave you a simulation in the OP of a regress on an objective moral claim. Where in there would pure logic be involved (irrespective of other moral claims)?....It seems to me that logic is the vehicle of the regress, but moral value is the actual content...lending continuous moral justification ad infinitum.

Everything has to conform to logic. If an objective moral fact exists, let's say we were able to analyze every justification and necessary premise to reaching that moral fact. First you would have to start with logic before you even got into morality. You can only justify morality by using logical facts to prove it. Logic is the groundwork of morality if objective moral facts exists.

That's definitely true, but it doesn't really address the argument we were just having. You're saying that in the middle of the regress moral statements facts will somehow vanish, and pure logic will enter the picture....Your argument now seems to be that logic will be the justification of morality (which is true,...but does not mean that logic will eventually take over the regress). Lets use an example: lying is wrong.

No I'm still stating the same. Pure logic is used before morality is used. So yeah, if a moral fact does exist, apply the infinite regress argument and eventually they won't even be talking morality anymore so it will be an epistemological problem like the one you mentioned.

Lying is wrong will eventually start to reach rational arguments in the process of this regress...e.g "you would not will that others lie to you...it produces a contradiction"...but the following question would be presented thus: "why is it wrong that I am contradicting myself"?

So, see how "other moral facts" are still involved, and will always be involved?

No. You didn't go deep enough :P
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 7:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 7:31:39 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/31/2012 7:25:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:56:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:34:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:17:17 PM, phantom wrote:
Any possible objective moral fact does not stem only from other moral facts but eventually from logic so the regress problem against morality ends up being epistemological anyway.

How so? I gave you a simulation in the OP of a regress on an objective moral claim. Where in there would pure logic be involved (irrespective of other moral claims)?....It seems to me that logic is the vehicle of the regress, but moral value is the actual content...lending continuous moral justification ad infinitum.

Everything has to conform to logic. If an objective moral fact exists, let's say we were able to analyze every justification and necessary premise to reaching that moral fact. First you would have to start with logic before you even got into morality. You can only justify morality by using logical facts to prove it. Logic is the groundwork of morality if objective moral facts exists.

That's definitely true, but it doesn't really address the argument we were just having. You're saying that in the middle of the regress moral statements facts will somehow vanish, and pure logic will enter the picture....Your argument now seems to be that logic will be the justification of morality (which is true,...but does not mean that logic will eventually take over the regress). Lets use an example: lying is wrong.

No I'm still stating the same. Pure logic is used before morality is used. So yeah, if a moral fact does exist, apply the infinite regress argument and eventually they won't even be talking morality anymore so it will be an epistemological problem like the one you mentioned.

Lying is wrong will eventually start to reach rational arguments in the process of this regress...e.g "you would not will that others lie to you...it produces a contradiction"...but the following question would be presented thus: "why is it wrong that I am contradicting myself"?

So, see how "other moral facts" are still involved, and will always be involved?

No. You didn't go deep enough :P

Okay fine. Prove it.....Produce an example of a phrase in this "question-answer" infinite regress that has nothing to do with "other moral facts". Use the "lying is wrong" statement.
"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
10/31/2012 7:39:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@phantom:

The questioner will ALWAYS ask: "why is that wrong?".....and then the ethicist (for lack of a better term) will answer the question, and then the questioner will ask AGAIN "....and why is that wrong?"

The ethicist's argument will devolve into practical logic, maybe, but the questioner's questions will NEVER involve pure logic. It will always be "and why is that wrong?"...forcing the ethicist to come up with another answer....inevitably in vain.
"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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 7:54:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 7:34:00 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 7:31:39 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/31/2012 7:25:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:56:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:34:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 6:17:17 PM, phantom wrote:
Any possible objective moral fact does not stem only from other moral facts but eventually from logic so the regress problem against morality ends up being epistemological anyway.

How so? I gave you a simulation in the OP of a regress on an objective moral claim. Where in there would pure logic be involved (irrespective of other moral claims)?....It seems to me that logic is the vehicle of the regress, but moral value is the actual content...lending continuous moral justification ad infinitum.

Everything has to conform to logic. If an objective moral fact exists, let's say we were able to analyze every justification and necessary premise to reaching that moral fact. First you would have to start with logic before you even got into morality. You can only justify morality by using logical facts to prove it. Logic is the groundwork of morality if objective moral facts exists.

That's definitely true, but it doesn't really address the argument we were just having. You're saying that in the middle of the regress moral statements facts will somehow vanish, and pure logic will enter the picture....Your argument now seems to be that logic will be the justification of morality (which is true,...but does not mean that logic will eventually take over the regress). Lets use an example: lying is wrong.

No I'm still stating the same. Pure logic is used before morality is used. So yeah, if a moral fact does exist, apply the infinite regress argument and eventually they won't even be talking morality anymore so it will be an epistemological problem like the one you mentioned.

Lying is wrong will eventually start to reach rational arguments in the process of this regress...e.g "you would not will that others lie to you...it produces a contradiction"...but the following question would be presented thus: "why is it wrong that I am contradicting myself"?

So, see how "other moral facts" are still involved, and will always be involved?

No. You didn't go deep enough :P

Okay fine. Prove it.....Produce an example of a phrase in this "question-answer" infinite regress that has nothing to do with "other moral facts". Use the "lying is wrong" statement.

That's a little hard when I'm not sure about objective morality but let me try. So suppose I argue something is wrong because of our objective moral rights. I then have to establish why we have those rights obviously. In the end it might all depend on things like whether I am conscious, and rational which are not moral facts at all. Or a simpler scenario, suppose I'm arguing about the moral fairness of something. I might base it off mathematical concepts.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 7:54:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are you talking about? The only possible objective of all argumentation is to find the "most reasonable position". Why? Because if that isn't our objective - if our objective is to find base indisputable truths, then the IR really does comes into play and everything collapses into solipsism or some other version of epistemic nihilism.

I'm not trying to dispel reason, but we have to narrow the aims of our arguments and discussion. We're not discussing the nature of reason, we're discussing the IRA which has a certain applicability. I'm just saying you're sort of abusing the nature of the word to narrowly define it in that way...It would be like if we were discussing political philosophy and my only objections to your points were "that's not reasonable."

I'm going to lay my cards on the table: The IR is ridiculous - you say that somethings are exempt from doubt on the basis of "reason" and I find this unconvincing.

Rational positions rested on the exigencies of argumentation are what make all discussions meaningful. If you want to disagree with this, then fine, but that would be the end of this conversation because you would have divested it of any common ground on which to have a coherent interplay of arguments.

...I'm not trying to deconstruct reason, but our really isn't about reason as a concept, it's about the limits of the IRA.

When your goal is to find some base truths about the world, the IR is omnipresent.

This is not true, the IRA doesn't apply specifically to "base truths" even though we all have them. I think this is an important point, we do have these fundamental base truths - you even said you have yours in logic....what's to stop the IRA from doubting these? Nothing. The IRA is applicable to all propositions.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 7:59:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 7:39:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
@phantom:

The questioner will ALWAYS ask: "why is that wrong?".....and then the ethicist (for lack of a better term) will answer the question, and then the questioner will ask AGAIN "....and why is that wrong?"


The ethicist's argument will devolve into practical logic, maybe, but the questioner's questions will NEVER involve pure logic. It will always be "and why is that wrong?"...forcing the ethicist to come up with another answer....inevitably in vain.

Well if the questioner is always asking what is wrong than he may be asking incoherent questions since the moral advocate might not view it as wrong. Logic is used to derive what is wrong. It doesn't mean that logic has any concept of moral right or wrong in it, only it's implications. Then you ask how the logic implies moral wrongness and the ethicist uses logic to establish that proof and logic for proof of that proof and so on, resulting in an epistemological regress problem.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 8:09:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 7:59:05 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/31/2012 7:39:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
@phantom:

The questioner will ALWAYS ask: "why is that wrong?".....and then the ethicist (for lack of a better term) will answer the question, and then the questioner will ask AGAIN "....and why is that wrong?"


The ethicist's argument will devolve into practical logic, maybe, but the questioner's questions will NEVER involve pure logic. It will always be "and why is that wrong?"...forcing the ethicist to come up with another answer....inevitably in vain.

Well if the questioner is always asking what is wrong than he may be asking incoherent questions since the moral advocate might not view it as wrong. Logic is used to derive what is wrong. It doesn't mean that logic has any concept of moral right or wrong in it, only it's implications. Then you ask how the logic implies moral wrongness and the ethicist uses logic to establish that proof and logic for proof of that proof and so on, resulting in an epistemological regress problem.

You're not really getting at the point of that narrative. The questioner will not always necessarily ask "why is this wrong"...but his questions will always concern the moral value of the preceding justification provided by the moral advocate.

You will never get objective morality out of logic. Logic is concerned with what is....what is rational, what makes sense. Logic is not concerned with what ought to be. According to logic, all statements of ought are contingent on a predesignated goal, and can thereafter be judged by the degree to which it achieves the goal. There is no way to logically justify a floating ought. It's impossible....yet objective morality is a floating ought itself.

You know what, I think I'll drop the Infinite regress thing. This is a much clearer argument and gets at the heart of what's wrong with this belief.
"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
10/31/2012 8:23:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 7:54:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What are you talking about? The only possible objective of all argumentation is to find the "most reasonable position". Why? Because if that isn't our objective - if our objective is to find base indisputable truths, then the IR really does comes into play and everything collapses into solipsism or some other version of epistemic nihilism.

I'm not trying to dispel reason, but we have to narrow the aims of our arguments and discussion. We're not discussing the nature of reason, we're discussing the IRA which has a certain applicability. I'm just saying you're sort of abusing the nature of the word to narrowly define it in that way...It would be like if we were discussing political philosophy and my only objections to your points were "that's not reasonable."

I'm going to lay my cards on the table: The IR is ridiculous - you say that somethings are exempt from doubt on the basis of "reason" and I find this unconvincing.

Rational positions rested on the exigencies of argumentation are what make all discussions meaningful. If you want to disagree with this, then fine, but that would be the end of this conversation because you would have divested it of any common ground on which to have a coherent interplay of arguments.

...I'm not trying to deconstruct reason, but our really isn't about reason as a concept, it's about the limits of the IRA.

When your goal is to find some base truths about the world, the IR is omnipresent.

This is not true, the IRA doesn't apply specifically to "base truths" even though we all have them. I think this is an important point, we do have these fundamental base truths - you even said you have yours in logic....what's to stop the IRA from doubting these? Nothing. The IRA is applicable to all propositions.

no, no, that's not what I mean by base truths. I have no base truths OMG. Nobody has any base truths. Base truths are impossible to have. A base truth is a claim that is indisputably and objectively true and accurately describes the real mind-independent world. Nobody knows any base truths because there is perpetual uncertainty. We ASSUME that logic is true (but the truth of logic is not certain and can't ever be...there's no way to justify or prove logic without begging the question). We ASSUME that human perception is accurate. What allows us to make these assumptions? Because we are not concerned with base truths. We are concerned with the most rational position that makes the least assumptions. Therefore, only those assumptions that are necessary are exempt from doubt under this model of thinking. This is the same model of thinking that you're currently using, and the same model of thinking that everyone uses, because it is impossible to argue or use our intellects without it. This is where the limits of doubt come from. This is where the limits of IR come from. This is why I say that ubiquitous IR only exists under the "base truths" mentality.
"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
10/31/2012 8:31:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 8:23:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/31/2012 7:54:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
What are you talking about? The only possible objective of all argumentation is to find the "most reasonable position". Why? Because if that isn't our objective - if our objective is to find base indisputable truths, then the IR really does comes into play and everything collapses into solipsism or some other version of epistemic nihilism.

I'm not trying to dispel reason, but we have to narrow the aims of our arguments and discussion. We're not discussing the nature of reason, we're discussing the IRA which has a certain applicability. I'm just saying you're sort of abusing the nature of the word to narrowly define it in that way...It would be like if we were discussing political philosophy and my only objections to your points were "that's not reasonable."

I'm going to lay my cards on the table: The IR is ridiculous - you say that somethings are exempt from doubt on the basis of "reason" and I find this unconvincing.

Rational positions rested on the exigencies of argumentation are what make all discussions meaningful. If you want to disagree with this, then fine, but that would be the end of this conversation because you would have divested it of any common ground on which to have a coherent interplay of arguments.

...I'm not trying to deconstruct reason, but our really isn't about reason as a concept, it's about the limits of the IRA.

When your goal is to find some base truths about the world, the IR is omnipresent.

This is not true, the IRA doesn't apply specifically to "base truths" even though we all have them. I think this is an important point, we do have these fundamental base truths - you even said you have yours in logic....what's to stop the IRA from doubting these? Nothing. The IRA is applicable to all propositions.

no, no, that's not what I mean by base truths. I have no base truths OMG. Nobody has any base truths. Base truths are impossible to have. A base truth is a claim that is indisputably and objectively true and accurately describes the real mind-independent world. Nobody knows any base truths because there is perpetual uncertainty. We ASSUME that logic is true (but the truth of logic is not certain and can't ever be...there's no way to justify or prove logic without begging the question). We ASSUME that human perception is accurate. What allows us to make these assumptions? Because we are not concerned with base truths. We are concerned with the most rational position that makes the least assumptions. Therefore, only those assumptions that are necessary are exempt from doubt under this model of thinking. This is the same model of thinking that you're currently using, and the same model of thinking that everyone uses, because it is impossible to argue or use our intellects without it. This is where the limits of doubt come from. This is where the limits of IR come from. This is why I say that ubiquitous IR only exists under the "base truths" mentality.

I'm sure there are some terms in the philosopher's lexicon that I'm supposed to be using, and that might be creating some confusion, but I don't know them, unfortunately.
"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
10/31/2012 11:45:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A little baked right now, but I put considerable thought into it.

A base truth is a claim that is indisputably and objectively true

I want you to think really hard about this idea. Base truth is indisputable? You realize if like God came down and performed miracles and made apologizes/excuses for past misdeeds, I could still ask "why should I follow him?" Or "are you sure God exists?" It seems like your claim asks for nothing less than omniscience to know some basic truth, but how could one ever be sure of one's omniscience?

Nobody knows any base truths because there is perpetual uncertainty.

Are you certain of this?

We are concerned with the most rational position that makes the least assumptions.

What does that mean? What constitutes an assumption?

Therefore, only those assumptions that are necessary are exempt from doubt under this model of thinking.

How do we determine what is necessary? Are we to speak of reality in only its most reductive terms?

This is the same model of thinking that you're currently using, and the same model of thinking that everyone uses, because it is impossible to argue or use our intellects without it. This is where the limits of doubt come from.

How are you talking about the "limits to doubt" when you brought up "perpetual uncertainty" and the idea that there is nothing we can absolutely sure of. Contradiction?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 6:19:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 11:45:29 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
A little baked right now, but I put considerable thought into it.

A base truth is a claim that is indisputably and objectively true

I want you to think really hard about this idea. Base truth is indisputable? You realize if like God came down and performed miracles and made apologizes/excuses for past misdeeds, I could still ask "why should I follow him?" Or "are you sure God exists?" It seems like your claim asks for nothing less than omniscience to know some basic truth, but how could one ever be sure of one's omniscience?

Nobody knows any base truths because there is perpetual uncertainty.

Are you certain of this?

We are concerned with the most rational position that makes the least assumptions.

What does that mean? What constitutes an assumption?

Therefore, only those assumptions that are necessary are exempt from doubt under this model of thinking.

How do we determine what is necessary? Are we to speak of reality in only its most reductive terms?

This is the same model of thinking that you're currently using, and the same model of thinking that everyone uses, because it is impossible to argue or use our intellects without it. This is where the limits of doubt come from.

How are you talking about the "limits to doubt" when you brought up "perpetual uncertainty" and the idea that there is nothing we can absolutely sure of. Contradiction?

OMG, if you would just listen to what I'm actually saying you wouldn't find it so objectionable, because it actually isn't objectionable.

1. Logic is unprovable. You cannot justify logic without engaging in circular reasoning. Please tell me you don't find something wrong with this much, because I'll just give up after that.

2. So why is it that we still use logic if it is perpetually unprovable? It is a necessary assumption. It's an assumption that all human beings with a brain, passively establish

3. From this idea of necessary assumptions springs limitations on doubt and limitations on a reasonable reach of IR.

This is not objectionable. If you think there's something wrong with it, you probably missed the point I was trying to make. I don't say this because I think I'm always right. I say this because the point I'm making is extremely simple and extremely sanctified. You must make assumptions in order to use your intellect. You must assume that it really is true that if an apple is entirely red, it is not entirely green. You must assume that it really is true that if all cats are mammals, and Garfield is a cat, Garfield is a mammal. This is logic....but this unprovable logic. We trust their truth axiomatically, which ultimately boils down to an assumption.
"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
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 7:33:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I consider this can be happened at least when we are trying to solve something, when we are trying to make decision, when we are trying to make a choice, when we are trying to find appropriate reason to legalize what we will do.

Then, we can trace back our decision making to these possible sources: it's religion, it's ethics, it's emotionally (including because of biologically). These are candidates as the first cause for further acts (decision making).

It can be applied by assuming "decision making" as variable that can be replaced with "judging".

The question is, which do you prefer to be (typical of) the first cause? For believers, this can be traced to holy scriptures. For atheists, this can be traced to ethics. And based on research this can be traced to emotional.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 8:34:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 5:03:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
In response to the argument that objective morality leads to infinite regress, some people pointed out that the regress is a universal epistemic problem and also involves subjective morality, so by comparison the argument yields no palpable significance. But, I'd like to dispute that.

This is the regress for objective morality: why is lying wrong? Because it"s unfair to others. Why is it wrong to be unfair? Because you would not will that others be unfair to you. Why does it matter that I would not will that? Because it means you"re being inconsistent. Why is it wrong to be inconsistent? etc...

This is the regress for subjective morality: According to 000ike, stealing is wrong. (note that the statement is descriptively subjective, and offers no moral advice that is in its nature irrespective of a subject) How do you know that? Because I read somewhere that he believes stealing is wrong. How can you be so sure your reading is correct? Because my perception is correct. How can you be so sure your perception is correct? etc....

The regress in objective morality relies on uncertainty of reason, whereas the regress in subjective morality relies on uncertainty of evidence. However, the certainty of evidence was already presumed at the outset of the argument. In order for anyone to debate anything, he first of all presumes that his visual perception and senses are correct (permitting for inductive reasoning) then he assumes that his sense of logic is correct (permitting for deductive reasoning). Therefore, you cannot, in mid-argument, contest the accuracy of logic or the accuracy of general human perception, because that would collapse the predicates of argumentation itself. So when you say that subjective morality leads to infinite regress because we can't prove that the subjective claim is true, you're implicitly or sometimes explicitly contesting the validity of the predicate that allowed you to make the argument in the first place. So the whole thing becomes self-defeating.

That said, no such problems arise when we contest the truth of objective moral claims....leaving them, by default, the more irrational of the two.

You already disputed that, and you didn't get a single vote in the debate, not one vote. And then, like you do, you declared yourself the winner LOL.

Do you just enjoy having your a$$ handed to you or what? Or maybe you just to be logically walked all over again, so you can declare yourself the winner again?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 8:47:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 8:34:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Do you just enjoy having your a$$ handed to you or what? Or maybe you just to be logically walked all over again, so you can declare yourself the winner again?

If you want a flamewar, go find someone else. I'm frankly done....It is not my job to explain things to you or to justify things to you or defend myself because you've found something to attack.
"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
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 9:09:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Assume we live in the 1984 world, where language is explicitly defined by the state to have certain meanings. For example, duckspeak exists. Ducksepeak breaks laws of logic. However, we accept the existence of duckspeak anyway. So now laws of logic don't work.

Oh wait... sh!t.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...