Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K · 10-27-2002, 05:40 AM

Longbow:

I get the idea that you are purposely trying to muddy the waters, so let's try to nail your position.

Quote:

Because that is the contention that is being made with regard to God and magic. If you do not require that God exists or that magic exists, if all you are asking me is if that siply by discussing them one makes these concepts objective, then the answer is yes. If all you are asking is whether the the theists can make up an idea, then the answer is obviously yes.

Is it your contention that morality, like God and magic, hasn't been shown to exist, but that simply discussing it makes the CONCEPT objective? If that is indeed your position, then I will grant you that (although I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of objective concepts). I may have been misinterpreting your position. It sounded to me like you were claiming that morality does exist objectively - not just as a concept.

Longbow · 10-27-2002, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
Could you please provide an definition of SUBJECTIVE? How many OBJECTIVE things are based on what an INDIVIDUAL means?

I am using the normal definitions. If I say "God exists," then you cannot intepret this statement as meaning "I like God," or "Yeay god!" You have to interpret this statement as saying something objective about the physical world. Now some theists say that they aren't making a claim about the physical world by this. Some theists identify "god" in really odd ways such as with a feeling like "love" as in "god is love". But, notwithstanding this kind of double talk, they are all still trying to make some objectively true assertion.

For the most part, atheists and agnostics take it for granted that they are making an assertion. There are some views that actively argue that they are not because what they are saying is really incoherent. (They argue that it turns out that they are just saying "Yeay god!") But something like that is a particular view that entails assertions of its own that have the burden of proof. Even asking for a theist to define "god" isn't an absurd thing to do because there are so many disparate views on what all is meant by that. And if they are introducing some specific thing and claiming that it exists, then they should be able to identify that thing and distinguish it from other things.

In rejecting the view that morality is subjective, I am not introducing anything. I am just referring to something everyone has been talking about for thousands of years now. So, if you want identification of what I mean then it is sufficient to say statements like "X is wrong." If you still don't know what I could possibly talking about, then you just haven't been exposed to moral dilemmas (perhaps because you have been stranded on a deserted isalnd all your life or something). In that case, you just need to live in the vicinity of other people and/or read philosophy, politics, etc. And, since I am referring to something that clearly exists, the phenomenon of moral discourse, I must adhere to that (as you must as well). One property of my moral world view is that it is consitent with that phenomenon.

In general, you could make up your very own objective subject. I could make up "Longbow Theory". And, how would it be defined? By what I mean when I talk about it. Whether or not you discuss a subject is certainly a personal choice. For that matter, all of the knowledge you actually peronally have is subjective in the sense that it is based on your own subjective perceptions, thoughts, etc. That does not mean that "knowledge is subjective" or in other words, if you do happen to know a proposition is true that it could nonetheless be "false for someone else". And, just because I invented "Longbow Theory", that would not mean that the theory wasn't an objective theory that one could make true and false assertions about. Even if I didn't make up "Longbow Theory", the possibility of it still "exists" in that the theory could be made up. Even if no one exists, it is still true that "if everyone existed and this guy Longbow came up with this theory, 'Longbow Theory', then...." This is all it means to say that an idea "exists" merely as an objective idea. And this is as objective as it gets.

Longbow · 10-27-2002, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kharakov:
Sounds good, but it seems to me that you are throwing out a red herring by changing the subject of discussion from objective morality (objective good, beauty or whatever) to whether or not someone means what they mean, which is irrelevant as to whether or not there is an actual objective morality.

Our understanding of language is purely a subjective experience.

When someone makes a statement, they are making it based upon their subjective experience of language. Your interpretation of that statement is based upon your subjective experience of language. Conscious thought is subjective (if you want to debate this, start a thread).

In addition, I would like to point out that the subjective/objective distinction in science is between easily obtained observations and critically obtained observations.

What you are talking about is true about all of knowledge. In that sense, everything is subjective. In a more meaningful sense, language is objective. If it were not, then communication with it would be impossible. There has to be an object that we are all referring to and implimenting that is independent of our personal subjective experiences for one person to be able to type a sentence but then for another to be able to interpret it.

But, that language is objective is beside the point. I am not saying that morality is defined by language, either. I am merely reduced to the semantics because I happen to be having a discussion about it (using language). So, when you say somethng like "Morality is subjective", I have to go figure out what you are talking about. And, I have to figure out what I am talking about. So, the semantics is a big part of it, but it is not limited to semantics. Once we all know what we are talking about -- the phenomenon of moral discourse that has been taking place now for thousands of years -- there is this whole other conceptual issue of what the nature of those concepts is. You are saying that they are subjective matters of taste. I am saying that they aren't. The concept of "wrong", to you, really is just a feeling.

Okay, fine. But you cannot say that that is what it is supposed to be. In other words, you cannot just take it for granted that that is true. You have to show that even though we all have tried to create an objective subject matter, it is impossible for it to be so. You have to show that it is impossible to have objective morality because it is patently obvious that if it is possible, then that must be what everyone is talking about.

Or, in other words, when you just take it for granted that morality is subjective, then you really aren't talking about morality. And if someone makes a moral assertion, then responding to them under the assumption that "morality is subjective" is non sequitur. And if it happens in a situation where you are denying their assertion, then you are creating a straw man.

K · 10-27-2002, 05:58 AM

Longbow:

I think this discussion could proceed effectively, but not without some kind of referee. We clearly disagree on nearly every aspect of the grounds for debate - from burden of proof, to logical conclusion, and everything in between. Without an impartial party to enforce the rules of debate, we'll just be spinning our wheels.

I think you at least know what I was claiming. We may disagree on the definition of morality and morals, but it seems that we can at least agree that moral behavior is genetic.

Good luck to you.

Longbow · 10-27-2002, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Helmling:
I feel badly because you�ve gone to a great length to try and establish that the burden of proof is on me. I appreciate your effort, but I�m sorry to say your argument strikes me as irrelevant. Deconstructing the semantics of a statement as a route to working with the ideas behind it seems like a game to me, and an elaborate one that does not really address the central issue. In all you said, the only statement that bore on the issue from my point of view was this one: �Perhaps it is worth noting that when I say "true", I mean it. I don't mean some flakey "true" for one person but "false" for another or anything like that.�

Well, it is worth noting that it is commonly recognized that the burden of proof is on the moral subjectivist. Secondly, and in reference to the discussion about the principle of charity, the most charitable way to interpret what you are saying, then, when you are saying things about morality but assuming moral subjectivism is that you are not actually trying to talk about morality. And that is largely what I have been saying as well. It is not as though you cannot talk about behavior or about evolutionarily selected for traits. But if you assume that morality is reduced to this, then you are effectively acting as though you cannot talk about what morality is really about.

Quote:

Originally posted by Helmling:
You are here asserting that something can be universally, and presumably, objectively �true.� I suspect, from experience in other discussions, that we could talk in circles about morality for weeks but ultimately find that the disagreement is this fundamental one. As I said, to me, Kant�s imperative is an assumption. Not a valueless one, but one�in true Existentialist fashion�that is chosen by the proponent and has no inherent objective �truth� to it. And I have yet to find anyone with a system of morality that is not�at its core�founded on an ultimately arbitrary assumption.

That may be your belief, but that is probably false unless you have a good reason for it that I don't know about. In other words, you have the burden to prove that as well. It is one thing to say that you have not met with a moral foundation that satisfies you. It is another thing to say that no moral foundation exists. Even if you say that so-and-so's moral foundation is inadequate, the burden is yours.

Quote:

Originally posted by Helmling:
And I would be forced to disagree. The question was �did morals evolve.� In terms of a discussion anchored in evolutionary theory, morals ARE behaviors. They are cognitive behaviors, some might like to call them meme patterns adapted by the organism through his environment. But they are patterns of behavior�specifically those we consider to be �moral� or acceptable. If we are discussing whether these standards for behavior (i.e. the cognitions and emotional states that dictate which behaviors are �moral�) then we are conceding that there is nothing intrinsic to the nature of the behavior itself. If morals evolved then they are the product of the simple logic of natural selection, the same as anything else. Those morals that aided a cultural group in survival persisted. Those moral standards which were maladaptive to that group�s survival, would not have.

The question is "Did morals evolve," is not the assertion that yes they did evolve. If you are bringing up "morals" at all without explicitly excluding philosophy, then you are bringing up a philosophical discussion. Just because someone puts the word "morals" together with word "evolution", they are not somehow implicitly asking for only a particular world view. My contention is that something like "morals" cannot be something that could have "evloved".

Perhaps it is clear now that the whole thread was just some sort of self-aggrandizement -- a reaffirmation of the "scientific" world view that morals did evolve. But, I am being charitable...

Quote:

Originally posted by Helmling:
If I might cite an example, a society that deemed it immoral to practice birth control would be likely to spawn new adherents to this system of morality. A society which deemed all sexual behavior immoral, for any reason, would become extinct. Now, obviously this example is only illustrative in the crudest sense. It is not even an example of biological evolution, but the principle has some bearing on cultural evolution as well, though obviously there are many more variables than in the case of pure Darwinism. Either way, there is nothing intrinsic in a behavior, or in a belief, that would lead evolution to select it as a successful moral value. Under different circumstances or in different environments (be they physical or sociological) the same behavior may become moral or immoral. The moral then that evolves from this process is being applied to the behavior based on factors intrinsic�not to the behavior�but to the interaction of that behavior and its consequences with the social and physical environment of the individual organism. In short, what evolved to be considered moral was dependent on the context of that evolution�be it biological or cultural.

As I have said before, this is a pretty straightforward misuse of the term "morals". We all agree that the behavior evolved. And that behavior is predicated on a personal belief about morality. You are talking abotu beliefs and behaviors, not morality. Only if you assume that personal beliefs and behaviors are morality can you properly use the term "morality" the way you are. But you must show this. If you do not, then you might be using the term "morality", but it has no relevance to what most people are talking about when they talk about morality.

Longbow · 10-27-2002, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kharakov:
Then "treating everyone with respect" is not moral behavior.

Is 'not causing needless suffering' a component of causing the greatest good? Is it the only component?

Well, that is your contention then. What I am doing is trying to look at what could possibly be "a moral". Both "Don't cause needless suffering" and "Treat others with respect" could be morals. And they seem to be distinct from one another. (They don't just reduce to the same moral.)

Beyond that, you would have to defend the view generally (in this day and age) in such a way that doesn't reduce to some other moral. "Maximize utility" is another moral. Being the Kantian that I am, I don't think that any of these that you propose are really morals. They are moral beliefs, but what morality is all about is a lot more like "Treat everyone with respect" (according to me). That is not to say that not causing needless suffering and maximizing utility aren't generally valuable ends. But, they are not truly morals. They are just mistaken (according to me) moral beliefs.

Longbow · 10-27-2002, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
I get the idea that you are purposely trying to muddy the waters, so let's try to nail your position.

I'm not, but you are.

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
Is it your contention that morality, like God and magic, hasn't been shown to exist, but that simply discussing it makes the CONCEPT objective?

My contention is and has always been that morals do not "exist" like it is often held that magic and God do, not that they "have no been shown to exist". Morals are ideas -- ideas do not physically exist.

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
If that is indeed your position, then I will grant you that (although I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of objective concepts). I may have been misinterpreting your position. It sounded to me like you were claiming that morality does exist objectively - not just as a concept.

And you wonder why I keep saying that I am making an epistemological contention not a metaphysical one. I am not saying that anything exists as anything more than an idea. I am not creating a new kind of an object that "exists", you know like bosons, mesons, and then there is the "moral" particle. In fact, I am all about denying just that very statement in answering no to the question "Did morals evolve?" But, I am saying that morality is objective. Just because the objects of a discussion do not physically exist, that doesn't make the discussion subjective.

Longbow · 10-27-2002, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
Longbow:

I think this discussion could proceed effectively, but not without some kind of referee. We clearly disagree on nearly every aspect of the grounds for debate - from burden of proof, to logical conclusion, and everything in between. Without an impartial party to enforce the rules of debate, we'll just be spinning our wheels.

I think you at least know what I was claiming. We may disagree on the definition of morality and morals, but it seems that we can at least agree that moral behavior is genetic.

Good luck to you.

Okay, then. I do indeed agree that moral behavior is genetic. (Or, if not then enviornmentally predetermined through conditioning at any rate.)

Helmling · 10-27-2002, 07:19 PM

Longbow:

[�then you are effectively acting as though you cannot talk about what morality is really about.]

Yes and no. The problem is that due to a fundamental philosophical difference, what you think �what morality is really about� and what I think it�s all about are two completely different things.

[ It is one thing to say that you have not met with a moral foundation that satisfies you. It is another thing to say that no moral foundation exists. Even if you say that so-and-so's moral foundation is inadequate, the burden is yours.]

I�m not concerned with any one person�s moral foundation or whether it is adequate or inadequate. What I�m arguing is that that foundation�whatever it may be�will not be based on anything objective or purely rational. Moral foundations exist aplenty. But they are all (again, all that I�ve encountered) constructs built on cultural belief patterns or individual choices, not on anything objective. I don�t see how I can prove this exactly. I don�t know why you continue to assert that I must prove a negative.

I�m something of an empiricist in this regard. Lacking evidence to support the belief in an objective basis for morality, I am forced to assume that there is no such basis.

You�ve said you believe in such an objective morality�may I ask what you consider to be the basis of it?

[My contention is that something like "morals" cannot be something that could have "evloved".]

And my contention is that you are wrong�It seems as though you are trying to limit what I can say in this discussion. I don�t think your limits are valid. I do not consider a discussion so bounded to be useful. I must, by matter of course, bring my own worldview to bear. I have not tried to tell you that you may not disagree, I am simply explaining why I believe that the way I am discussing morals is perfectly valid.

[As I have said before, this is a pretty straightforward misuse of the term "morals". We all agree that the behavior evolved. And that behavior is predicated on a personal belief about morality. You are talking abotu beliefs and behaviors, not morality. Only if you assume that personal beliefs and behaviors are morality can you properly use the term "morality" the way you are.]

That is exactly what I think morals are. And I don�t know that I would be so comfortable speaking for �most people� were I you. Most people I know would agree that one�s personal belief about morality IS that person's morality. So perhaps we should both just speak for ourselves.

So, let me speak for myself. In a nutshell, this is what I believe:

Morality is a system of belief. As a system of belief, it is a set of cognitive behaviors. These cognitive behaviors, like all behavior, are the product of a biological system reacting to its environment based on its conditioned responses and its genetically programmed responses.

It seems to me your objection regarding my use of �moral� stems from that fundamental philosophical difference I have mentioned. I think it is obvious that we will not be able to engage each other�s ideas unless we first address that root difference.

Helmling · 10-27-2002, 07:34 PM

Longbow,

For the first time since I joined the discussion I�ve found time to browse through and read other parts of the it. It is giving me some insight into your position that I had not gleaned from the quid pro quo between you and me.

I must say I think you�re being disingenuous (imagine that remark with something akin to a wry wink, please). You�ve criticized me for discussing morality without meaning what �most people� mean when they talk about it. But clearly it is you who are talking about what is �objective� and �subjective� in a way other than what �most people� would. You call these the �normal� definitions, but I beg to differ. If nothing else, look to the fact that everyone here seem to have misinterpreted what you meant by them. When I�and some of the others in this discussion, I gather�mean when I ask about an �objective morality� is very different than what you mean.

Now that I better understand your point of view I�m not sure how to engage your ideas. It seems you only wish to operate in a way (and with a formalism) I am unaccustomed to and, frankly, in a manner I�m not sure can be productive. I do not, however, want to be rash. I need some time to consider your position and formulate a way of bridging the gap between the way your refer to ideas as being �objective� and the way I am accustomed to thinking of the concept.

I wonder also if you might be amenable to moving the discussion. I am a veteran of the old II board and this format really does not appeal to me. I like the caliber of minds around here, but not the technology behind the board. Just a thought�I will return.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2002, 05:58 AM	#104
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Longbow: I think this discussion could proceed effectively, but not without some kind of referee. We clearly disagree on nearly every aspect of the grounds for debate - from burden of proof, to logical conclusion, and everything in between. Without an impartial party to enforce the rules of debate, we'll just be spinning our wheels. I think you at least know what I was claiming. We may disagree on the definition of morality and morals, but it seems that we can at least agree that moral behavior is genetic. Good luck to you.

10-27-2002, 07:19 PM	#109
Helmling Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: El Paso, TX, USA Posts: 18	Longbow: [�then you are effectively acting as though you cannot talk about what morality is really about.] Yes and no. The problem is that due to a fundamental philosophical difference, what you think �what morality is really about� and what I think it�s all about are two completely different things. [ It is one thing to say that you have not met with a moral foundation that satisfies you. It is another thing to say that no moral foundation exists. Even if you say that so-and-so's moral foundation is inadequate, the burden is yours.] I�m not concerned with any one person�s moral foundation or whether it is adequate or inadequate. What I�m arguing is that that foundation�whatever it may be�will not be based on anything objective or purely rational. Moral foundations exist aplenty. But they are all (again, all that I�ve encountered) constructs built on cultural belief patterns or individual choices, not on anything objective. I don�t see how I can prove this exactly. I don�t know why you continue to assert that I must prove a negative. I�m something of an empiricist in this regard. Lacking evidence to support the belief in an objective basis for morality, I am forced to assume that there is no such basis. You�ve said you believe in such an objective morality�may I ask what you consider to be the basis of it? [My contention is that something like "morals" cannot be something that could have "evloved".] And my contention is that you are wrong�It seems as though you are trying to limit what I can say in this discussion. I don�t think your limits are valid. I do not consider a discussion so bounded to be useful. I must, by matter of course, bring my own worldview to bear. I have not tried to tell you that you may not disagree, I am simply explaining why I believe that the way I am discussing morals is perfectly valid. [As I have said before, this is a pretty straightforward misuse of the term "morals". We all agree that the behavior evolved. And that behavior is predicated on a personal belief about morality. You are talking abotu beliefs and behaviors, not morality. Only if you assume that personal beliefs and behaviors are morality can you properly use the term "morality" the way you are.] That is exactly what I think morals are. And I don�t know that I would be so comfortable speaking for �most people� were I you. Most people I know would agree that one�s personal belief about morality IS that person's morality. So perhaps we should both just speak for ourselves. So, let me speak for myself. In a nutshell, this is what I believe: Morality is a system of belief. As a system of belief, it is a set of cognitive behaviors. These cognitive behaviors, like all behavior, are the product of a biological system reacting to its environment based on its conditioned responses and its genetically programmed responses. It seems to me your objection regarding my use of �moral� stems from that fundamental philosophical difference I have mentioned. I think it is obvious that we will not be able to engage each other�s ideas unless we first address that root difference.

10-27-2002, 07:34 PM	#110
Helmling Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: El Paso, TX, USA Posts: 18	Longbow, For the first time since I joined the discussion I�ve found time to browse through and read other parts of the it. It is giving me some insight into your position that I had not gleaned from the quid pro quo between you and me. I must say I think you�re being disingenuous (imagine that remark with something akin to a wry wink, please). You�ve criticized me for discussing morality without meaning what �most people� mean when they talk about it. But clearly it is you who are talking about what is �objective� and �subjective� in a way other than what �most people� would. You call these the �normal� definitions, but I beg to differ. If nothing else, look to the fact that everyone here seem to have misinterpreted what you meant by them. When I�and some of the others in this discussion, I gather�mean when I ask about an �objective morality� is very different than what you mean. Now that I better understand your point of view I�m not sure how to engage your ideas. It seems you only wish to operate in a way (and with a formalism) I am unaccustomed to and, frankly, in a manner I�m not sure can be productive. I do not, however, want to be rash. I need some time to consider your position and formulate a way of bridging the gap between the way your refer to ideas as being �objective� and the way I am accustomed to thinking of the concept. I wonder also if you might be amenable to moving the discussion. I am a veteran of the old II board and this format really does not appeal to me. I like the caliber of minds around here, but not the technology behind the board. Just a thought�I will return.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.