Alonzo Fyfe

This phrase is a bit ambiguous.

In one sense, it may be true. But not in the sense that there is no right answer as to the beliefs and desires that a person has. But, in the sense that these may be so complex and we may have so little data that we may not be able to know what beliefs and desires a person has.

In themselves, beliefs and desires are scientific entities about which objectively true claims are completely possible. In practice, we may have limited capacity to determine what that objective truth happens to be in a particular place and time.

Gurdur

*sigh*

1) What I have demonstrated is that any claim by an "objective morality" to be the only existing morality is false.
Empirically false.

Fyfe has made some semantic quibbles to the extent of almost flatly denying the possibility of testing the claims of beliefs; but has not tackled my argument.

2) It's Gurdur, but why should that minor point worry too much ?

Gurdur

You contradict yourself to a degree.

Moreover, I was talking of 99Percent's claims as to his morality being the only existing one (for example, denying that ethics can be formed socially) ---- that is a claim concerning the natural world. It is false, and empirically demonstratably false.

Alonzo Fyfe

99Percent, is it true that you are claiming that yours is the only ethical theory that people actually believe in?

Or is it, instead, not the case that you believe yours is the only ethical theory that exists. But, instead, even though multiple ethical theories exist, yours is the only one that is rationally defensible?

99Percent

Gurdur: This is interesting. Does this premise fit only for you or does it fit for everyone, as you seem to suggest by your offer to introduce the invisible pink unicorn to those who don't accept this premise? If so then we can have a solid basis for objective truth no?But again, moralities fall outside of empirical observations as they would require moral value judgements, which empircal observations by themselves cannot provide. Only the individual observer can determine what is good or bad. Can you see the problem?Again, you seem to confuse science with philosophy. They are not the same. Science is based on purely empirical observations ie, facts, which are then interpreted. The epistemology (method of gaining knowledge) has been previously defined. When we deal with morality, and moral theories we are in the realm of philosophy of which is the premises are based on a more profound level. The epistemology is part of this process.I would say, and correct me if I am wrong, that your moral beliefs are none, because they are not based on reason, but on general consensus. In other words what others persuade you what they are. Your "moral" actions are based on social norms and conventions. If you do something others disapprove of you get a tsk, tsk at best or jail at worse, if you do something others approve of you get a nice nod, smile and pat in the back. IOW, your "moral" belief is not really moral, because its based on feelings.Free will is not a scientific concept, its a philosophical concept which is beyond science. It is something that cannot be proven or disproven scientifically.It cannot be an area of research, IMO. Please provide links or references of scientist researching free-will. What I am saying is that if there is indeed an objective morality then it automatically follows that it applies for society in general and forms the basis of laws and a political system. This is not the same as saying that my moral theory is the only one out there, but that it should the correct one if I claim it is objective. And not only that, but there can be many subjective moralities that apply individually which can coexist with the broader objective one of all society.May I need to remind you yet again of what my handle "99Percent" stands for?

tkIs this the "faith" we must have on reality being true that you relativist like so much to brag about? That is nice to see some consession at last on the fact that we must base on some basis of truth for any kind of meaningful discussion.If it makes sense to you after deliberate thought yes, but notice how Russell makes the disclaimer that you must remain skeptical, that there is a part (in my case its 1%) of you that thinks things over when necessary, checking premises when things look contradictory. This is all part of being rational and objective.NO. Because an intelligent divine being is not logical and is in fact contradictory to naturalism, therefore you must revise your deduction that complex things can't be created from simple things. (In this case we can argue that complexity arises out of self organizational and replication of information)Of course not. The explanation must make sense, ie, there is rational process that accepts or rejects the "truth". Not just because someone says it based on reason, then it automatically becomes true. There must be an explanation that makes sense before you accept it as true. And even so, you must always be on your skeptical guard when necessary, or you fall into the trap of being dogmatic.Altruism as an objective moral idea is perverted (as claimed by Christianity or in socialism through taxation to support the "needy"). But that does not disallow for individual moral stance to be altruistic if that is what makes a person happy if and only if there is no force or threat of force involved (like taxes).And what are my original "absurd" assertions?

Alonzo Fyfe: Of course not.Yes. Since my moral theory is based on reason it follows that it can be understood in rational human terms and accepted as valid after reasoning it out and seeing it step by step. Its not true simply because I say so, as implied by Gurdur.

Gurdur

My word, this doesn't tackle what I said, no ?
To repeat: it's an initial premise. You don't have to accept it.
But if you don't accept it, then you get caught in a maze of all possible imagination.

Not when "objective moralities" make certain claims that affect the natural world

Nonsense.
The social group can also determine what is good or bad -- the basis of democracy.

Gurdur

Nope.

You're wrong.
This mischaracterization is at complete odds with everything I've written on this board; and I ask you to provide evidence of your claim.
This is not a thread on free will. I have done so in the past; I will probably do so again;`but first, you can provide me with

1) evidence to say that my morals are "none" and only based on"general consensus" (a small contradiction of yours, but never mind)

2) scientific evidence of your claim that "free will" is an "unscientific concept"

3 evidence for your implied claim that I am supposed to be irrational in argumentation normally here

I wait in all eagerness.

You just claimed that morals are not morals if they're based on consensus; back that claim up, otherwise you have just made an absolutist claim.

Moreover, your claim that there are many subjective moralities that could coexist with your "objective" morality seems a hollow claim to me in view of all your statements in the PD and in this forum over time; what happens, for instance, when the majority of subjective opinions get together and intersubjectively vote that your "objective" morality should be discarded ?

Gurdur

heh, here's a distinction without a difference in practice !

Compare with what 99Percent actually says in this thread:
IOW, 99Percent has just declared all morals/ethics not based on what he considers to be reason to be not morals/ethics.

Or, IOW, they're not supposed to be just indefensible (interestingly, 99Percent again denies willfully and without evidence that a social consensus can determine morals, even rationally ), they're supposed to be non-existent.

99Percent

Which in practical terms means that I do have to accept it in order to have any meaningful and useful discussion. What so hard about that?But objective moralities make no claims about what affects the natural world (that's science btw), only about human beliefs, motives and values.Of which I disagree entirely. For example a social group can label another social group bad regardless of their humanity, just because they "determine" it to be by social concesus. Like white supramacists labeling blacks as inferior, or Nazi's determining jews to be evil, etc. If you say so If you say so Tell you what, why don't you instead outline your moral theory or how you derive your own morality and principles if any, and we can take it from there.What I said there was serious. I meant "rational" argument vs "empirical" one which is what you usually resort to, not vs irrational. Apologies if you misunderstood me.Read on.What happens if the majority of subjective opinins get together and intersubjective vote that Gurdur (or anyone) is evil and should be executed and maybe even tortured? (which has happened countless of times in human history). With that simple logic I show that what is intersubjective is not automatically true or even morally valid.

Gurdur

And you have repeatedly denied that social groups as well as individuals can determine ethics.
Since social groups as well as individuals determining ethics is a readily observable behaviour in the natural world, your claim is about the natural world ---- and demonstratably false.

Irrelevant to the point. No, tell you what, how about you tackle the point above, so often repeated ? This thread is on your argumentation, not my own moral code; and I've sketched out the differences between objective, intersubjective and subjective quite a few times.

I take it you retract your false claims about my having no morals and being dependent upon social consensus ?


Oh, I don't think I misunderstood you at all.
It was a simple ad hominem of yours, for the very reason that "rational" in the English language is the antonym of "irrational" ---- not "empiricism".
I suggest you be far more precise if you do not wish to be considered as making ad hominems --- that is only my suggestion.

Where you persist in making a false distinction, BTW, between "rational" (as in "rationalism") and empiricism is that any rational, logical argument needs solid premises to be of any value -- that is, it needs empirical facts.

Just to repeat for the umpteenth time:
It is entirely possible to make a logical argument that is incorrect --- if the premises are false.
Which is why pure rationalism simply doesn't lead to any concrete results of any kind whatsoever.
I merely stress empiricism in order to stress the need to check claims against the actual evidence.