The Instigator
Fabrice
Pro (for)
The Contender
Xiutecuhtli
Con (against)

Objective ethical values do exist and these are them

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Fabrice has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 116739
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Fabrice

Pro

Determination of process of objective justification

If the purpose is objectively justified ideas, The method has to be objective justification. The respective process has to be determined.

Justification has logical stations, (e. G : value, Concept, Law, Social norm, Application to specific situation)

the last one being the result of the justification, A maxime, (maxime in form law or social norm)

and the first one having to be objective facts. Any other kind of idea would either not be objective and thus fail to fulfill the purpose of objective justification (subjective facts, Perception) or not be a fact and thus be an idea that has to be justified itself and thus cannot be the first station of objective justification (values, Emotions).

A maxime has to have a basic value as origin. By consequence, Between the first and the last station has to be a station that makes the transition from an objective fact to a basic value. (this intern process will be explained in the additional reflexion)

These three stations are the mandatory stations of objective justification in their given order. Practically applied, There can be a multitude of logical steps, In dependance of the specific situation. These logical steps will not be referred to as station.

Résumé : Process of objective jusitification = Objective facts => Basic values => Maximes

Additional reflexion :

In order for a general fact to be correspondable to/by logical considerations result in a basic value, The general facts needs to fulfill specific conditions. The sub-set of objective facts that will be referred to as static facts. Static facts are facts that do not provoke active processes (e. G : P=m*g or distilled water is constituted by H2O). There is no imaginable consideration in which such a static fact results in a basic value. The complement of the sub-set of static facts (objective facts that are not static facts) is the sub-set of what will be referred to as dynamic facts. Dynamic facts are facts that do provoke active processes (e. G : natural selection(, Whose controversy as objective fact is not of relevance, As this example is meant to fulfill the purpose of illustration)) Such a dynamic fact can potentially result in a basic value. (Considerations in which this is applied will be made in “Application of process of objective justification)

Résumé : Applicable objective facts : Dynamic facts (provoking active processes)

Application of process of objective justification

Objective dynamic fact : External selection.

A species is an ensemble of individuals that can reproduce inclusively and exclusively with other individuals of the same species. The individuals of each species share a set of genetic similarities. (Some of these genetic similarities can be the reason for which the respective individuals can only reproduce with other individuals of the same species or they can be the result of this circumstance. ) This set of genetic similarities will be referred to as genetic pool.

It exists a set of species. (This is also correct if the set of species is an empty set. Even if their is no life, External selection simply applies to a set of species that happens to be an empty one. Therefore, This fact is permanent. )

A multitude of variables (food sources, Habitats) in repetitive interaction with the genetic pool of the respective species determines its survival or its extinction.

The application of this process to every species will be referred to as external selection. (As a result of the interaction between the variables and the genetic pool of a given species, The species may become extinct and be taken out of the set of existing species, Or it may survive and not be taken out of the set of existing species. Additionally, A new species may emerge. )

The species that survive are by definition the ones that have the genetic pool of the highest quality, Its quality being defined in relationship to the multitude of variables that it is interacting with.

This external selection results in a qualitative improvement of what will be referred to as the overall genetic pool of the set of species, Its quality being defined by the quality the respective genetic pools of all/each/every species.

Basic value : By logical consequence, Each species has the basic value survival of the own species, Being subdivisable into preservation and (preventive) expansion. For this purpose, The multitude of variables and the genetic pool are to be optimized in respect to this goal.

Basic value : By logical consequence, The set of species has the basic value improvement of its overall genetic pool. For this purpose, The external selection is to be optimized in respect to the qualitative improvement of the overall genetic pool of the set of species.

Objective dynamic fact : Internal selection.

A species is an ensemble of individuals that can reproduce inclusively and exclusively with other individuals of the same species. Each individual has a set of genetic caracteristics that he does not share inclusively with every other individual of the same species. This set of genetic caracteristics will be reffered to as genetic potential/identity.

It exists a set of individuals within a given species. Each individual corresponds to a bloodline such that the reproduction of the respective individual is the equivalent of the continuation of its bloodline and the absence of reproduction of the respective individual is the equivalent of the termination of its bloodline. (such as a parent and his kid share a same bloodline)

A multitude of variables (attractivity, Survival) in repetitive interaction with the genetic potential/identity of the respective individual determines the continuation or termination of the respective bloodline.

The application of this process to every individual within a given species will be referred to as internal selection. (As a result of the interaction between the variables and the genetic potential/identity of a given individual, The corresponding bloodline may be terminated and be taken out of the set of bloodlines of the respective species, Or it may be continued and not be taken out of the set of bloodlines of the respective species the species. )

The bloodlines that are continued are by definition the ones that correspond to the individuals that have the genetic potential/identity of the highest quality, Its quality being defined in relationship to the multitude of variables that it is interacting with.

This internal selection results in a qualitative improvement of the genetic pool of the respective species.

Basic value : By logical consequence, Each individual of a given species has the basic value continuation of the corresponding bloodline. For this purpose, The multitude of variables and the genetic potential/identity are to be optimized in respect to this goal.

Basic value : By logical consequence, Each species has the basic value improvement of its genetic pool. For this purpose, The internal selection is to be optimized in respect to the qualitative improvement of the genetic pool of the respective species.

Objective dynamic fact : Possibility of ignorrance.

The possibility exists of the existence of basic values that have not been determined within the framework of this book. (It could be speculated that the hypothetical awareness of these basic values would not be of impact. However, The probability of this not being the case is above 0, Thus worthy of consideration. )

There is a multitude of potential reasons, Being subdivisable into lack of scientific knowledge of the individual, Which will be referred to as education, And lack of scientific knowledge of the community of the respective individual, Which will be referred to as scientific level.

Basic value : By logical consequence, These potential reasons are to be eliminated. For this purpose, Education of every individual and scientific level of the community of the respective individual are to be improved.

Résumé : External & Internal selection & Possibility of ignorrance => Preservation & Expansion & Genetic improvement of the own species & Education of the individual & Scientific level of the respective community


(I spelled ignorrance wrong on purpose to get this text through. )

Xiutecuhtli

Con

I'm not so good at understanding all those terms, But they do seem like they're NOT just empty jargon. I think I understand most of the arguments well enough, But if I misinterpret, Correct me. ;/

I saw that you assigned objective value to the survivability of a species, And that it was good that the high quality species were selected for and that they survived.
I don't agree that value needs to be assigned to that.

I think that, If the high quality or fit-to-survive species were wiped out, Or even if all of the species of life were wiped out in the whole universe, The universe would persist and conditions would remain favorable for life, Or favorable for the creation of conditions favorable for life, Just as conditions became favorable on Earth.

Earth was created from the sun, And formed into all that is considered good today. (For people who would rather believe in a religious creation at Genesis from the bible, Or any other creation story which doesn't match space-sciencey origins, Earth was created from the god, And formed into all that is considered good today (or however it happened for specific religions; I guess I could look up every religion, But it would take a long time and I think I cover most of it, Or my logic could be easily applied to cover those situations by those people who care to have them covered)).

The features of the universe that allowed for planets to form and contain materials for life would not change if life was wiped out (unless it was an end-of-all-existence situation, But let's say that doesn't happen, First). OR The features of god that allowed for him or her or it to form the world and/or give it life did not change (that's probably true for most religions, Likely for the religions of anyone who reads this).

Given enough time, Conditions can align or god could decide to allow for creation of life at the same level of complexity as before.
If things can return to the way they were, And if things WILL return to the way they were, Then there was no harm done. And having tiny organisms that can survive extremely well on a tiny ball in space doesn't mean things are better or worse.

The rest of the universe isn't affected much by anything that happens on inhabited planets.
If the effect on the rest of the universe is even what matters, A black hole is better than earth because it affects the rest of the universe MORE. If it matters that a "good" effect happens, Then it really doesn't tell us anything about what "good" is.
Debate Round No. 1
Fabrice

Pro


First of all, I want to thank you for accepting the debate(, Also for the reason that it really seems like you are trying to understand my point of view. )


I am aware that the vocabulary used may be confusing to some. Still, I decided to use this vocabulary, For it describes in the most concise and precise way the ideas of the “theory“, If you will. I can assure you that you have correctly interpreted the text.



Unfortunately, I cannot assure you that the following text will be entirely accurate from a purely logical perspective, Even though I will try for it to be.



In your text you treat the topic of relevance/importance. You define the relevance of an action/process in respect to its impact/effect on the universe. The measure of the impact/effect would be its size/“bigness“, If you will, As you have used the example of the black hole being more relevant than the inhabitation of a given planet. The reason for this probably is that a black hole can potentially affect a number of planets superior to one.


However, I fail to see how being bigger, Of a superior size would make an impact/effect more relevant.



However, I can comprehend your reflexion on how value does not need to be assigned to the survivability of species.


My reflexion on this is that, Indeed, From a neutral perspective, Value does not need to be assigned to that. However, Humans are part both in the external as in the internal selection. Therefore, Humans are to regard this from a partisan perspective. One could go as far as to say that every aspect of our life is inherently part of both selections. As a result from this circumstance, From the human partisan perspective, Value does need to be assigned for example to the survivability of its own species.


(I just quickly want to insist on that “partisan“ does not equal “subjective“. )


Xiutecuhtli

Con

"Partisan" might not equal "subjective" but "perspective" should. If it's all about how people view things, Then it's not objective. But that's kind of just exploiting a technicality.

More relevant is that humans aren't necessary for the universe to exist, Or for life to exist. Even though they are a major factor in selection, They aren't a vital one, And their survival is not required for things to carry on. If humans disappeared, It would change things, And maybe some species would suffer while others benefited, But selection is all ABOUT some species doing well and others not. Humans play a part in selection because they are present; they are not present to play a part in selection.

No objective AND ethics-related value (the definition of "value" that means "principle", Not "worth"; I was unsure before, But it seems like it was used as a countable noun in the topic so it's probably "principle") can exist, Regardless of subject area.

Objective values must exist OUTSIDE minds, Because if any value is based solely in thoughts, Feelings, Or beliefs, It is subjective (even if every mind in existence agreed, It would still be limited to perceived truth, Instead of concrete truth). An objective principle would have to have some form of existence outside of minds (if a principle is ABOUT reality, That still wouldn't be enough, Such as "killing someone is wrong" is only how someone feels about killing, Not actually a rule that is measurable or detectable when examining the moment of death).

Ethical values on the other hand must exist INSIDE minds, Because ethics are anything that people use to make choices. "Right" and "wrong" beyond what people use to make choices are irrelevant, Because un-choosing inanimate objects, Or things that could choose but don't at the time, Produce the same outcomes regardless of whether that outcome was "wrong" or "right" (although people usually make subconscious choices at all times when they're conscious; a person in a coma or sleeping produces the same outcome whether something is wrong or right but a person who's idly walking does decide how to take a step, Based on whether there's a stair or if it's a hill or just flat, For example). Choice is the only area in which right and wrong have any effect in the world, Unless the universe's physical laws enforce right and wrong, But then it would only be similar to "positive" and "negative" charges, Which don't really deserve their names because they aren't lower or higher in value than each other, Just opposites.

Trying to make a rule that is based on the real world AND exists for choices in people's minds splits the rule in half: if the rule was "killing is a good thing" and nobody wanted to choose that way, The ethics people used to decide would be distinct from the physical rule (and the physical rule in the end would have no effect on anything in the world, And would not exist). The only rule that exists is the consensus that "killing is a bad thing", And whether or not killing really is a "bad thing" according to non-arbitrary rules will not determine the arbitrary decisions people make. It is the general trend that people consider killing to be a bad thing, Not because of influence by a principle of the physical world, But because societies that decrease their own numbers do not persist while societies that cooperate civilly DO persist, And that isn't necessarily right, It's just what was caused to be likely by unbreakable rules.

Selection causes certain beliefs to become common, Analogously to how selection would cause certain traits to become common, But the beliefs were not "good"; they just caused their own continuation. It is impossible to determine when the current state of the definition of "right" is "right" because people who take an outside view on ALL of their rules in order to determine their validity have no further rules to choose by, And people who don't transcend each one don't entirely verify the definition of a "correct" choice. If an objective value is said to be "right", One might attempt to question why it is "right", And then find there is no reference with which to answer the question. It would be akin to trying to examine a flashlight in the dark; one can look at other things with the flashlight, But cannot shine the light ON the flashlight.
Debate Round No. 2
Fabrice

Pro

I in forward want to apologize for my short answer, For I do not intend to disrespect you by giving such a short answer of mine to such a long and well-thought argument of yours.

I think it was a mistake of me to use the term "perspective", As indeed it is linked to subjectivity.

Furthermore, Humans are indeed not necessary for life to exist, However, Species are, For a life has to fulfill the criteria of reproduction and a species (at least within the theory) is defined as an ensemble of individuals that can inclusively and exclusiviey reproduce with other individuals of the same species.
The reason we are talking about the example of humans is that we are humans.

Ethical values have to exist inside minds to be relevant, But not to be right. Wouldn"t it be ideal for an objective value existing outside minds would become an ethical value existing inside minds?
There is no reason for it to be impossible that an ethical value existing inside minds and an objective value existing outside minds are identical. In the case that they are identical, We have an objective ethical value. However, For an objective value to become an ethical one, Minds have to make the respective thought-process needed in order to recognize this objective value as an ethical one.

I do not want to create strawman here, But saying that an ethical value has to exist inside minds to be true(, If that is what you wanted to say, ) is like saying that something is true when people claim it to be true.

As you implied yourself, Only because a principle exists inside minds for an arbitrary reason does not make it impossible for this principle to also be the result of an non-arbitrary reason (outside minds).
I could also lists principles that are result of my theory that do not generally exist inside minds, For instance the concept of eugenics.

(Well, At the end, My answer is not that short. )
Xiutecuhtli

Con

Beings that can directly observe the physical world don't exist. Just like with a robot (because we are in many ways machines made of biological material) the brain only receives signals through wires; not the light directly, Because that was just an unintelligent sensor receiving that. The brain must have parts to translate the signals into the program language, And that is the level at which decisions are made and at which thoughts exist, Even though they are composed of unthinking particles of matter. A robot could get plugged into a computer which sends simulated signals through the wire of its sensor, And the robot would have trouble identifying any difference between the simulation and the reality, And even more trouble identifying which case was reality.

Ideal situations might not occur. The world could be empty blackness, Except for minds which only perceive that a world is real and that they are interacting with each other. The real world could be anything, And any objective ethical value is as likely as any other. The world could be a dream in which logic is backwards, Making all statements necessarily as easily false as they could be true.

We cannot determine whether any statements are objectively true therefore; only perspectives on the nature of the world can be created and be available for reasoning; those perspectives verifiably exist. The subjective level of truth is the only verifiable level of things, And the only level that matters (other levels only matter for effects ON the subjective level). Whether or not the objective world is in alignment, The world within which the minds interact and perceive is the only level in which decisions can and will be made.

There is no reason to define an area of objective truths as objective ethical values because the nature of the objective statement does not matter; only the effect on the subjective world matters, And something in the category of "ethical" as it exists in the objective world is just as likely to affect the subjective world as something outside of the category.
Because objective truths are unknowable and their natures are not indicative of their effects on the important world, The nature of any objective truth is moot (and indeterminable). The truth itself (not the nature of it) might not be moot because it could have effects, But determining whether it has an effect and therefore matters at all is also moot (and indeterminable).
An objective value cannot and does not need to be identified as real or right.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@ fabrice - Please present an example, Any example at all, Of anything purely objective.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
do not steal oppress be a sexual pervert or predator and do not pervert judicial justice.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
That is why it does not exist.
Posted by Fabrice 3 years ago
Fabrice
@felixmendelssohn
Well, here we are talking about what we define as subjective, and what as objective. As I had this discussion on another forum not long ago I will simply Copy-Paste what I wrote there:

"Quoting from different online dictionarys, "subjective" means "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" and "anything subjective is subject to interpretation", while "objective" means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". I find these definitions to be perfectly applicable to my theory."
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Do not think there are objective ethical values. Only subjective.. Would like to see just one example.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
subjective* opinions
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
i think @Fabrice
subjective: varying depending on each individual
objective: not subjective

thus let O be the intersection of all human's subjection opinions then O would be the set of objective opinions by definition since they are opinions that human shares and do not vary.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Do not think there are objective ethical values. Only subjective.. Would like to see just one example.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
what is the purpose of this? sounds like natural selection and doesn't seem to be very controversial
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.