Alonzo Fyfe

Come, now. Do you really want to try arguing the point that beliefs about morality are non-entities that Occam's Razor can cut out of the ontological universe?

That is what would be necessary to establish your charge of contradiction. Actually, I don't think that "beliefs about morality" are in need of any type of detailed ontological defense.

And "beliefs about morality" is quite sufficient to explain your empirical observations. Yielding, as I said in my original post, the conclusion that your claims about multiple moralities is either false, or shorthand for claims about multiple beliefs about moralities.

And, um, I've been around this forum for a while, actually.

Gurdur

Oh yes !

Seems to me you have two choices:

1. Either you want to claim morality itself is unapproachable and undescribable, and that therefore only beliefs about moralities can be explored.
   
   In which case it is all merely a semantic quibble, and all my points still stand with regard to my criticisms of an absolutist moralist stance.
   
2. Or you wish to claim that there is morality, and beliefs about morality, in which case you've simply multiplied the discussion topics along with the entitities, and you might be wanting to claim that there is an objective morality possible -- which leaves you with the great problem of how to explain people behave differently to each other.

Of course, feel free to add more options --- but keep it concrete and on a basis of possible falsifiability, please.
Who's talking ontology ?
I'm talking empirical observation.
So you keep saying ---- but you have yet to demonstrate it. Indulge me, please. Make a detailed argument instead of simply asserting it, please.

And so have I.
And I would like to keep this conversation on a concrete basis --- without falsifiability, we can talk Invisable Pink Unicorns.
If you think I'm being unnnecessarily terse, you came in on the point where I was matching empirical observattions to 99Percent's proclamations --- and finding a glaring mismatch, one which you seem to be saying can be explained away, but which you have not actually done so as yet.

Alonzo Fyfe

Your original assertion, the one that I was responding to, was that 99Percent's claims have been proven false by empirical evidence.

My counter-claim was that the empirical evidence does not prove 99Percent false. Now, I will admit that his claim may be incorrect, but the error has yet to be demonstrated, and the 'empirical evidence' that you assert does not succeed in offering that demonstration.

This is because the fact that people may have different beliefs about X, and thus behave differently when it comes to X, does not prove that there is no fact of the matter about X (that some people can be right and others can be wrong).

I will grant that it does not prove that there IS a fact of the matter about X either.

The distinction here is between asserting that 99Percent's claim has not been proved true, and asserting that 99Percent's claim has been proved false. You asserted the latter, when, in fact, all you can claim based on your argument is the former.

But that was my point. That there is no fact of the matter about X cannot be proved on the grounds that people have different beliefs about X.

If it could, then there could be no fact of the matter as to whether the earth is flat or round -- because some people still believe it is flat. Plus, they behave differently as a result. But the fact that different beliefs generate different behavior does not prove empirically that there is no objective fact of the matter concerning earth's shape.

For the record, I do not believe that intrinsic moral properties exist, and I belive that what you call absolute moral principles is a fiction. In spite of this fact, what I argue here is that this belief cannot be "proved" the way that you claim to have proved it.

Gurdur

Oh dear.
Let's accept first off that there's a natural world independent of human intepretation, shall we ?
Then, proceeding along well-known paths of actual observation, we see:

1. People have a certain subset of guidelines given the overall terminological name of morals or ethics (often used interchageably).
   
2. In that subset named morality/morals/ethics, we see that people often behave differently, and verbally characterize and justify their actions as according to diffferent expressed principles.
   
3. No matter how clearly I state I am talking empirically-observed behaviour and expressed verbal ideas, you seem to insist upon confusing that with beliefs about morality --- an entirely different area.
   
4. You have simply introduced a new quibble regarding the semantic/signifier meta-level, without addressing the point. You are as yet begging the question.
   
5. Furthermore, not only are you thus violating parsimony (Occam's razor), you have taken your stance to a non-falsifiable level, and I'ld like you to meet the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

99Percent

(My apologies for the delay in responding, I got hit with a flu beside having to travel to Monterrey, Mexico for business)

Gurdur: Will check them out, thanks.True. There must be some initial premises that have to be foundational. If they can be rejected or disproved, then they cease to be "initial premises", they in effect cannot be axiomatic.Yes, no doubts about it, but how do you know even that?Agreed.Agreed again. Science falls outside the realm of moral knowledge.True and I agree completelyNow you off the mark. Morality, objective or subjective falls outside the realm of science. As Alonzo Fyfe points out, moral theories are in the realm of beliefs and therefore cannot be empirically and scientifically proven or disproven. Beliefs must be proven or disproven with reasoning and logic.But I am yet one step ahead of you I know science and empiricism has nothing to do with morality, because morality is based on free will (which cannot be proven scientifically) and value judgements (which cannot be scientific either).No, "my" morality is not even mine to begin with.. Its one that can be understood by anyone at any time. Objective morality still allows for personal, subjective morality. Objective morality is for society and must form the basis of laws and a political system.Perhaps if you read my arguments a bit closer you will notice that I make no claims to utilarianism or resort to rhetorical feelings.No, I have never pretended "mine" is the only one out there. I make rational (not empirical) arguments for my moral theory.False. There are many truths that are outside empirical observations and deductions and require human value judgements. For example "free-will" is a truth that cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. "Life" is still not rigorously defined. "Happiness" cannot be scientifically measured, or does not even seem to exist. "Conciousness" is scientifically unexplainable or even observable, etc.

JERDOG: Not exactly. Objective morality is that which is independent of interpretation, feelings, emotions and personal experience. It is based on reason, not gut feelings.

tk: Reason is an understanding of knowledge following logical processes and compounded experience. I remember this debate between a theist and a non theist which tries to explain the difference between logic and reason:andAs you can see, reason is not only logic, but also mostly ordinary common sense.Again, you are distorting what is reason for pure logic being subjected to distorted definitions. It does not make sense. See quoted examples above to understand what I am saying. And this also applies to your absurd "Objectivism should join Al-Quaeda" example.No. I am 99Percent and I am not a full fledged Objectivist. You can say I am more of a neo-objectivist adopting Ayn Rand's guidelines in philosophy in a more general way instead of the usual dogmatic approach (which is even contrary to objectivist principles).I have a counter suggestion - start reading more carefully what I am saying, instead of dismissing me as an easy to knock down strawman

Alonzo Fyfe

True

True

Not entirely. I am saying that the changes in observed behavior is CAUSED BY a difference in beliefs about morality. Plus, differences in beliefs about morality is perfectly compatible with the possibility of some of those beliefs being true and others being false. Compatible, that is, with there being an objective fact of the matter.

Let us use another example. One person might think that illness is caused by bad air, and claim to be "fighting disease" with perfume and scented candles. Another believes taht disease is caused by bacteria, and use disinfectants. The fact that these two individuals are both engaging in behavior that they call "preventing disease", and are pursuing two different courses of action to do it, does not imply that there is no objective fact of the matter concerning the nature and cause of disease.

All of the empirical evidence in the world that you care to gather about how people behave cannot be proof that there is no objective fact of the matter, only that people have different opinions about what those facts are.


If you seek to use the term 'moral' to refer specifically to the behavior, then you make your point easily enough. But your argument is circular. You simply stipulate by definition that your view is correct.

I have found that a great many disputes tend to be merely semantic -- one person shouting "A is green" while another shouts just as loudly, "You are wrong, B is not green!"

This is the nature of the dispute that I see between you and 99Percent. You use the term 'morality' to refer to whatever claims and behavior people actually engage in, while 99Percent uses the term to refer to the justification for that behavior.

Or, perhaps you use the term to refer to the justification that people think they have, regardless of how reasonable and rational it may be, while 99Percent uses the term to the justification dictated by reason.

Either way, you are talking about two different things. And your "empirical evidence" does not touch 99Percent's assertions.


Actually, I have made no substantive claims for this statement to apply to. My argument has merely been that your argument is invalid -- that your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Your premises being this 'empirical behavior' that you are talking about, and your conclusion being that 99Percent has thereby been proved wrong.

Even if the truth of your premises is granted, you have not proved 99Percent wrong, because those premises are quite compatible with 99Percent being right. As with disease, different behavior where people use the same terms is compatible with some of them being right and others being wrong.

Gurdur

Fallacy of false analogy.
You're using an example of an eventually emprirically decideable question to compare it with a question that shows no evidence of being so ---- except for the claims of only one Objective morality existing, which is a claim regarding the natural world and can be disproven.
Begging the question. See point above.

Nonsense. I've simply implied my view is in keeping with naturalistic metaphysics, that it's falsifiable, parsimonious, and that it fits the facts.
More than you've done.
Until you get more concrete, which you've refused to do so far, you're merely making semantic quibbles with no point.
You seem to be confused.

I'll simply state again:
99Percent states there is no morality but the one he is professing.
I point out there are many different moralities, but no evidence for an objective one, and plenty against.
I'll simply state again:
I'm talking about empirically observable behaviour and verbal characterization, as well as the complete lack of any observable "Objective morality", plus the empirical reasons to deduct none exists.

Out of interest, how many more times will I need to state this before you tackle it ?

Furthermore, you keep confusing the semantics. Until you bring up proof that expressed behaviour and beliefs cannot be used to signify moralities, you are just emptily quibbling.
Rubbish. Please see points above. 99Percent's assertions are not limited to this thread, and I've been talking of all of them.

You keep on stating this, you keep on failing to demonstrate it.

Gurdur

I don't know that there is a natural world independent of human interpretation, it is simply the best premise which fits.

Anyone wishing to deny that premise gets introduced to the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Nope.
Science provides models of empirical observation.
Empirical observation disproves the claims of those who champion objective moralities.

Bit confused here, aren't you ?
Reasoning and logic are the basis of science.
Beliefs, according to Fyfe, are not exactly provable (he's right, but only when looking at very initial premises); and you want to claim suddenly that your moral beliefs are "proven true" ?

Back to yet another point:
My moral beliefs are good enough for me, and truer than yours --- at least IMHO. Prove me wrong.

And neither can determinism be proven scientifically at this time.
And FYI, yet again: "Free will" is not an unscientific concept, nor does science deny free will exists.

It's an are of contention and research, and there are many scientists in the field quite convinced that limited free will exists.

Your two statements contradict each other there.

I won't mention your "pathetic" comment to dk, then ?

Actually, you have. You did it right here when you said,
"Objective morality is for society and must form the basis of laws and a political system"
plus there are numerous comments of yours abounding around the place.
These are absolutist statements that make no accomodation of different stances.

tk

I think Alonzo Fyfe is saying that while there are many moralities, there may be exactly one morality which is `correct' (objectively true), while all other moralities are `incorrect'. While I don't discount the possibility of an objective morality, it's certainly not anything resembling Randism.

This is an assumption. We just blindly postulate it to be true for the purposes of this specific argument. I guess you have no objections to our making this assumption?

OK, I'll follow this definition of "reason" here (even if it's not a dictionary definition). So if a proposition appeals to "common sense", does it necessarily mean it's true? E.g. "common sense" tells me that complex things can't be created from simple things, therefore the universe must've be created by an intelligent divine being.

Similarly, even if we say that Randism is based on "reason", does it follow that Randism is objectively true? No!

(Note that Russell lists down "reason" as being less reliable than "logic".)

In that case, I figure that you disagree with the Objectivist stance that altruism is an unqualified evil?

I simply took your original, undistorted lines of argument, and applied the rules of inference to reach their logical conclusions. I can show every step in excruciating detail if needed. If the conclusions are absurd, it's because your original assertions are absurd.

Alonzo Fyfe

Quite accurate.

Now, I do not think there exists an objectively true morality which is anything like Randian Objectivism, my point has been that Gundar's argument falls short of demonstrating this.

Even accepting Gundar's 'empirical observations", the possibility of a 'correct' objective morality and several 'incorrect' or 'mistaken beliefs' about that objective morality exists.

To say that Gundar's argument fails is not to say that his conclusion is false. Only, that he has not demonstrated that his conclusion is true.