Jerry Smith

heheh -- as though i have to extend the invitation to get criticized on a discussion board!

Seriously,
Pompous, Malaclypse, bd-from-kg, others...

I have read parts of the thread on moral subjectivity (luvluv's Mere Christianity thread and others). I have to admit that I am a moral "moronicist" when it comes to certain points. Here is my problem:

I can see no evidence for the existence of any objective moral standard.

I can see the arguments for the propriety of a subjective moral standard. I find myself faced with real life that I cannot make sense of in the light of it.

The one idea of luvluv's that I have a hard time dealing with under the framework of moral subjectivism is "shame."

A subjectivist, if I understand it correctly (and I probably don't) has certain values which are, to a greater or lesser degree fixed by his/her own emotional disposition.

For instance:
I value my family.
I value my time discussing morality on the internet.

The conflict:
I experience shame when I neglect my family (don't pay them much attention) in favor of discussing morality on the internet. The shame comes from a feeling that I "should" subordinate my desire to discuss to the needs of my family, yet sometimes I do not.

The conflict, expanded upon:
A moral subjectivist might say that I appropriately feel shame because I behaved in one way (neglected my family) when I felt that it was wrong. This should not prove to be the case more than once or twice... that is until I "learned my lesson" from the shame I experienced. Yet, I continue with my internet discussions at the expense of my family time.

A moral subjectivist might also say that I place greater value on the internet discussions than I do on my family, and that is a relatively inflexible part of my value system. A moral subjectivist might say that it is inappropriate for me to feel shame, and that I only do because I am judging myself by a moral standard that I have not adopted for myself. I would then be right to continue to act according to my priorities (internet over family), and to stop feeling shame...

In this second case, could not Bob rightly believe my standard of ethics to be a poor one? If no, is there no reason that I ought to do differently than I am, (assuming Bob's efforts to negotiate or coerce failed?)
If yes, then what would the subjectivist say about why I should change my value system, or why I should act in a way that is contrary to it?

To anticipate a certain class of response, let us assume that my wife (after I have neglected my family for many months or years) does successfully or unsuccessfully attempt to coerce me through the threat of divorce. Have I done right to wait on this coercion, adding conflict and discord to my family situation?

Can anyone shed any light?

I should state that this is partially hypothetical. Where it concerns the real life me:

I do weight my values in such a way that my wife would prefer I neglect my family less, but that we all are satisfied that I do participate enough with the family to be considered a "good husband and step-father", while still fulfilling my desires to discuss on the internet. However, I do have an acquaintance who is an Everquest junkie and who has (in my opinion) harmed his family greatly because of his neglect.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

tronvillain

I think you are oversimplifying things - emotional dispositions can vary in extremely complex ways.

Now, apparently sometimes you choose to spend time on the internet rather than with your family. It doesn't follow from this that your value "time on the internet" more than "time with family" since if that was absolutely true you wouldn't spend any time with your family at all. In reality, there is probably a complex relationship between the two under various conditions.

When you spend time on the internet rather than with your family you feel an emotion you call "shame." Presumably you spend slightly less time on the internet than if you did not, but the shame is not a sufficiently negative experience to prevent it entirely.

Well, if you would have done otherwise had you anticipated such a state of affairs, then your actions would seem accurately described as "wrong." On the other hand, if you would have done exactly the same thing despite anticipating this outcome, then your actions would seem accurately described as "right" (from your perspective).

Malaclypse the Younger

Jerry Smith

This is an interesting topic.

First, we must note a few facts.

Even the most cursory investigation of human thought and human discourse makes one realize that thought is not classically logical: It does not proceed by making deductions from known facts in a logically coherent whole. Rather, the human mind is at best paraconsistent: It can hold contradictory notions at the same time without exploding and finding every statement true.

The human mind is also recursively self-referential: We can think, and we can think about our thoughts, and we can think about thinking about our thoughts, ad infinitum. And, as Russel, Godel, et. al. have noted, self referentiality poses severe, if not insuperable problems for classical logic--Russel attempted to merely banish it (with only limited success that compromised the power of logic vs. the power of the human mind).

Not only do we have values, but we have values about our values, and values about our values about our values, ad infinitum (or at least to the degree we want to think about it).

So, moral subjectivism entails self referentiality, because our values, and values about values, etc. are morally relevant. Additionally, because the human mind is paraconsistent, we cannot infer the absence of even a fundamental and difficult to resolve paradox or contradiction from the ordinary function of the mind.

Therefore, it becomes reasonable to conclude that the shame is a self-referential value: a value about other values or a value about the value of a relative ranking of other values. Indeed, it is possible to be ashamed of feeling shame itself!

It is also reasonable to conclude that the the existence of shame might itself not be sufficient to resolve the paradox; rather we know the inherent contradiction between the shame and the exercise of values we are ashamed of can paraconsistently exist.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

tronvillain

Melaclypse the Younger:
Russel attempted to merely banish it? I see no evidence that humans are capable of anything more limited self-referentiality.

Malaclypse the Younger

tronvillain

In Principia Mathematica, Russell (and North & Whitehead) tried to use set theory to redefine classical logic so that there was no possibility of creating well-formed self-referential statements.

Well, if by "limited" you mean "not infinite", I agree; the use of ad infinitum was rhetorical, not literal.

But any self-reference entails self-referential paradoxes, from the standpoint of classical logic.

Which means the (pre- and post-linguistic) mind does not form and believe propositions by strict classical logic, which seems an uncontroversial conclusion.

[ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

echidna

To offer a lighter reply …

Not sure I quite understand your problem. I’d suggest that the shame or guilt is your conscience indicating that you are actually acting against the moral standard which you have adopted.

Clearly our conscious actions are not always aligned with our moral values, be they objective OR subjective. Morality is only one driver among many, & often the other motivators are simply more powerful, so conscience is annoying but a useful method to keep our behaviour in check. Conscience is there to remind of when there are multiple and conflicting motivators, a method so we can’t too easily prioritise a single motivator and utterly ignore all others.

I think even atheists are allowed to have consciences, providing they don’t dominate lives with a miserable Catholic-style guilt.

IMO, consiences are usually right, so go ahead and more spend time with your family, but I think it’s necessary to look after Number One as well. Family would bring a lot of responsibility but I reckon everyone’s allowed a little self-indulgence every now and again, unless you’re seeking martyrdom.

FWIW, 93 posts in 6 months doesn’t seem too criminal as long as you’re not doing too much lurking as well. 900 in around a year, lucky I don’t have kids.

echidna

BTW, just a small thing, but it really bugs me in a petty kinda way. I really don’t mind the odd speling mistake, but PLEASE, not in the title. And you’re not Robinson Crusoe unfortunately.

Jamie_L

Jerry Smith:

I think you're making an erroneous assumption that all of our choices are made based on our moral values. I don't believe that is true. Everyone has a host of desires that have nothing to do with our moral values. A simple example is eating. We don't eat foods we like because that's part of our moral value system. We eat foods we like simply because we like them.

Now, unlike eating, many desires may go against our moral values. I may see a woman I find attractive. I may desire to have sex with her. I'm a married man, and that goes against my moral values, so I don't do it.

Now, as for your example: I would say "you" spend too much time on the internet not because you are reacting to a value system that places the internet higher than your family: you spend too much time on the internet because you have an amoral desire to continue doing something enjoyable (spending time on the internet). As a human being, it is quite possible for you to choose an amoral desire over a moral value. Later, you feel shame that you did not stick to your morals in the face of this desire.

Taken to the extreme, we get into the areas of addiction: does an alcoholic place a high moral value on getting wasted and ruining the rest of his life? No. He has a nearly unconrollable desire that is difficult to resist, even when it conflicts with his moral values.

Jamie

Jerry Smith

...nail... ...head... WHACK!

Thanks, all....

Jerry Smith

Sorry. I plead not guilty by reason of typo.