Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Fact vs Moral value

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:40:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Every now and then I think about how we take "facts" about the world but also claim "moral values" eg, good & evil on these facts. One of the most famous examples by Humans is - ought problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have to admit it's not all too clear how you get from fact to moral value. The problem is, I see that people confuse their own emotional reaction as one and the same as a moral value. I hate X = X is evil.

But this makes moral values (eg X is evil) nothing more than an expression of emotion from a primate species who have developed words and language.

So since "facts" don't get you to moral values, nor does one's emotion get you to moral values, errrr are they really there ? or are we just kidding ourselves ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 3:43:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
One of the most famous examples by Hume, is - ought problem.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 5:26:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The "ought to be" can only be based on the "is" , what else ?! but the relationship should be this way as I see it:

the "ought to be" is the optimal and most productive possible form of "is".

That depends on functions of the defined object, and the imagination of what an optimal state is.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 11:55:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 5:26:37 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The "ought to be" can only be based on the "is" , what else ?! but the relationship should be this way as I see it:

the "ought to be" is the optimal and most productive possible form of "is".


That depends on functions of the defined object, and the imagination of what an optimal state is.

Right, and facts don't have some imagined optimal state. We imagine an optimal state....

1) I imagine X as optimal
2) The existence Y is contrary to X
C) Therefore Y "ought" not to exist

But I think the argument here is even if X as some sort of optimal state that doesn't make that state a "good" in moral terms, nor do things we will achieve that state make them "good" in moral terms.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 1:26:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me explain how morality works.

Joe and Sam are two primitive humans.

Joe has a huge shed full of grain. Sam does not. Sam is hungry and wants some of Joe's grain.

Joe says, "GRRR! Get away from that grain shed, it's MINE!" He then chases Sam away with a spear.

Sam fashions a spear of his own and practices his fighting techniques in the woods. He then comes back to kick Joe's butt and steal his grain.

Joe realizes that he's no match for Sam, so enlists the help of his mates, Pete and Tom. Joe, Pete and Tom gang up on Sam, and send him running back to the woods without any grain.

Sam keeps trying to steal Joe's grain, until Joe is forced put Pete and Tom on permanent grain-watching duty to make sure Sam doesn't steal any.

Joe's other mate, Brad, watches from a distance. He thinks, "Sam is taking all the heat for this. If I steal some grain, I could blame it on Sam!"

So Brad tries to steal some grain. Joe catches him and says, "GRRR! You tried to steal my grain! You were supposed to be my friend!" He then kicks the sh!t out of Brad in front of his other mates, so they know not to steal his grain.

Joe's mate Carl, who doesn't want his 2 children to share Brad's fate, teaches them that stealing Joe's grain is wrong (wrong as in "incorrect choice that gets you kicked to sh!t").

Time passes. Carl's children become adults, and have never questioned their father's message that stealing Joe's grain is wrong. They assume it's just a truth of life, and don't know it's to protect them from Joe's bullying a$$holery.

Carl's daughter Rebecca has 2 kids of her own, and catches one of them stealing the other's teddy bear. She tells him off, saying that stealing is wrong. When her son asks why, Rebecca cannot answer because she doesn't know. So she makes up some bullsh!t about being nice to others so they'll be nice to you.

Joe, meanwhile, takes his son into the woods so they can steal Sam's food. After all, Sam doesn't have 5 mates to back him up. They can do what they like to him.

Joe stumbles upon Sam's daughter. Joe says, "Sh!t, you're hot. Hey son, help me tie her up so we can take her home. She'll make a nice wife for you." So Joe and his son kidnap Sam's daughter and take her back to their place to make bread and babies.

Sam sees them carrying his daughter off and says, "GRRR! Get away from that girl, she's MINE!" As Joe has 5 mates and Sam has none, Sam can't rescue his daughter. So he takes revenge by burning down Joe's grain shed and killing Pete and Tom.

Joe sees the ruins of his grain shed and says, "GRRR! Sam burned down my grain shed, we must hunt him down and kill him!"

Rebecca's son Jack, who is by now a teenager, doesn't fancy hunting Sam down. He says, "F*ck you, Joe. Who put you in charge?"

Joe can't kill Jack, because that would turn everybody against him, so he gets his mate Fred to sort this sh!t out.

Fred says, "Here, I have some magic mushrooms. They will allow me to talk to the gods, who will decide what we should do about Sam." So Fred gets really stoned and writes some stuff on stone tablets. When he sobers up, he says, "The Gods have decreed that we must follow these laws:

1. He who steals from our posse must die.

2. He who questions Joe must die.

3. Every 7th day, Joe and I shall give you all magic mushrooms so you can honor the gods."

Jack, who likes the idea of free magic mushrooms, decides to go along with Joe's plan. So Joe, Jack, Fred, Carl and Joe Jr. all grab their spears and go into the woods. There they find Sam, and beat the sh!t out of him. They drag him back home and disembowel him in front of everybody else, then throw a feast so nobody has cause to complain.

Jack eventually has children of his own. One day, he catches his son Alexander stealing carrots from Joe's garden, and tells him not to do that. When Alexander asks why, Jack replies, "Because the gods decreed that stealing from our posse was wrong (wrong as in "like the devil, who's a very bad person"), and the gods are never wrong."

Alexander is an intellectual, and isn't satisfied with Jack's answer. So he ponders the true nature of "wrong", and writes a 3,000 word thesis that has no relation to reality. Nobody else understands it, so they all think Alexander is really smart. This strokes Alexander's ego, so he ponders the issue some more and invents Ethics.

Joe V studies Ethics under Alexander, and learns to use reason and logic. So when he catches Bobby stealing from his grain shed, he says, "Sir! You are trespassing in this grain shed, in violation of decency and proper moral conduct. I demand that you leave my property at once!" Bobby doesn't, so Joe V bores him to death with a reasoned moral argument.

So in summary, morality is just the classy version of growling and waving spears at people to satisfy territorial caveman instincts. The only fact in all of this is that people really like their grain.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 11:16:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 11:55:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:26:37 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The "ought to be" can only be based on the "is" , what else ?! but the relationship should be this way as I see it:

the "ought to be" is the optimal and most productive possible form of "is".


That depends on functions of the defined object, and the imagination of what an optimal state is.

Right, and facts don't have some imagined optimal state. We imagine an optimal state....

1) I imagine X as optimal
2) The existence Y is contrary to X
C) Therefore Y "ought" not to exist

But I think the argument here is even if X as some sort of optimal state that doesn't make that state a "good" in moral terms, nor do things we will achieve that state make them "good" in moral terms.

Yes, that's why it also needs to be productive... if the state X and Y are both different stated for the object A, with X being a productive state, and Y an unproductive state, with none of the states being necessary (vital), then X is the Moral state, and Y is the immoral state.
bulproof
Posts: 25,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 12:06:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 11:16:27 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:55:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:26:37 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The "ought to be" can only be based on the "is" , what else ?! but the relationship should be this way as I see it:

the "ought to be" is the optimal and most productive possible form of "is".


That depends on functions of the defined object, and the imagination of what an optimal state is.

Right, and facts don't have some imagined optimal state. We imagine an optimal state....

1) I imagine X as optimal
2) The existence Y is contrary to X
C) Therefore Y "ought" not to exist

But I think the argument here is even if X as some sort of optimal state that doesn't make that state a "good" in moral terms, nor do things we will achieve that state make them "good" in moral terms.

Yes, that's why it also needs to be productive... if the state X and Y are both different stated for the object A, with X being a productive state, and Y an unproductive state, with none of the states being necessary (vital), then X is the Moral state, and Y is the immoral state.

Now I get it. If I kill bill in order that I take his land then that is moral.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 1:10:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 3:40:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Every now and then I think about how we take "facts" about the world but also claim "moral values" eg, good & evil on these facts. One of the most famous examples by Humans is - ought problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I have to admit it's not all too clear how you get from fact to moral value. The problem is, I see that people confuse their own emotional reaction as one and the same as a moral value. I hate X = X is evil.

But this makes moral values (eg X is evil) nothing more than an expression of emotion from a primate species who have developed words and language.

So since "facts" don't get you to moral values, nor does one's emotion get you to moral values, errrr are they really there ? or are we just kidding ourselves ?

All you have to understand is that Lucifer ( the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ) is like a "boogie man" in the woods. it's only meant to deceive God's people during this first age as a contrast to the Truth so God could draw out His servant ( Christ ) in the flesh called prophets and saints. Christ contains information without deception so this contrast was needed by God to connect with His invisible Servant and reveal to us who we are, how He created us and what His eternal plan is.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 8:38:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 11:16:27 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:55:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:26:37 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The "ought to be" can only be based on the "is" , what else ?! but the relationship should be this way as I see it:

the "ought to be" is the optimal and most productive possible form of "is".


That depends on functions of the defined object, and the imagination of what an optimal state is.

Right, and facts don't have some imagined optimal state. We imagine an optimal state....

1) I imagine X as optimal
2) The existence Y is contrary to X
C) Therefore Y "ought" not to exist

But I think the argument here is even if X as some sort of optimal state that doesn't make that state a "good" in moral terms, nor do things we will achieve that state make them "good" in moral terms.

Yes, that's why it also needs to be productive... if the state X and Y are both different stated for the object A, with X being a productive state, and Y an unproductive state, with none of the states being necessary (vital), then X is the Moral state, and Y is the immoral state.

What is considered a "productive state" will be dependent on what the imagined ideal state is.

Different imagined ideal states will result in different results of what is considered productive and unproductive.

So no, this doesn't get you to good & evil in moral terms. It gets you good in the sense of what one should do based upon a previous and self imposed goal/imagined ideal state.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 10:40:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 8:38:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/22/2013 11:16:27 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:55:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2013 5:26:37 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The "ought to be" can only be based on the "is" , what else ?! but the relationship should be this way as I see it:

the "ought to be" is the optimal and most productive possible form of "is".


That depends on functions of the defined object, and the imagination of what an optimal state is.

Right, and facts don't have some imagined optimal state. We imagine an optimal state....

1) I imagine X as optimal
2) The existence Y is contrary to X
C) Therefore Y "ought" not to exist

But I think the argument here is even if X as some sort of optimal state that doesn't make that state a "good" in moral terms, nor do things we will achieve that state make them "good" in moral terms.

Yes, that's why it also needs to be productive... if the state X and Y are both different stated for the object A, with X being a productive state, and Y an unproductive state, with none of the states being necessary (vital), then X is the Moral state, and Y is the immoral state.

What is considered a "productive state" will be dependent on what the imagined ideal state is.

Different imagined ideal states will result in different results of what is considered productive and unproductive.

So no, this doesn't get you to good & evil in moral terms. It gets you good in the sense of what one should do based upon a previous and self imposed goal/imagined ideal state.

There's no such thing as good and evil. It's only a delusion by our Creator. It's like the "boogie man in the woods" that makes everyone who doesn't understand deception, fear it.