I'm coming rather late into this conversation, but please help this bear of little brain. I'm trying to follow this and I can't make sense of it.

1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable (if P, then Q)
2. If I value something it is not necessarily morally valuable (not Q)
3. Therefore moral values are not my values (therefore not P)

That argument is valid and sound. You can run it again with yourself mentioned in premise 1 and 2 rather than me and it will remain valid and sound. — Bartricks

Staring with #1, I value eating ice cream (in moderation) - but I think we would all agree that eating ice cream is not morally valuable. What am I missing here?

Whether or not God is good has no impact on whether or not he exists. — T Clark

inconsistencies in different parts of the bible — T Clark

You are correct that whether or not God is good has no impact on whether or not he exists.

However, as far as I know, God's goodness is a core tenet of most versions of Christianity,

By pointing out that the God depicted in the Old & new Testaments commits horribly cruel acts, Hitchens was simply highlighting one of the most glaring inconsistencies in standard Christian version of God.

"The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. " — Terrapin Station

I could be wrong (a regular occurrence) but I think most of us here would agree that such a world would be preferable to the world we currently live in - a world in which most people do believe things just because someone said it and in which most people will automatically follow orders when given by a person or persons in authority.

Is this world even possible given human nature and the history of mankind? I'm highly doubtful, but let's assume that it's possible. Now it becomes a question of methods - how do we achieve this lofty goal that we all agree on?

What I think Echamion and others are saying is that - again given human nature and the history of mankind - allowing all hate speech will increase the odds that that authoritarian regimes will arise - exactly the opposite result that we all desire.

I believe that Terrapin & I are using the word "fact" as it functions in the context of the Correspondence theory of truth. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but as I understand it, in Correspondence Theory the word "fact" is synonymous with "state of affairs", "existence", "reality", etc. Statements/propositions are true or false in so far as they accurately describe facts.

So definition #5

Philosophy) philosophy a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement — Janus

is wrong - at least in this context. True propositions describe facts ((wikipedia uses the term structural isomorphism), but the word "fact" and the word "proposition" have very different definitions.

Terrapin, please correct me if I have misrepresented your position.

OK. I understand what you're saying - we're on the same page there. I just find the wording a bit confusing. Maybe it's just me, but I find this a bit clearer - if a bit more wordy

Factual claim = a claim about a possible fact.

"Eels don't reproduce. They spontaneously generate from the mud." That's a claim about a fact. It's asserting something about what the world is like, how the world works. It's wrong, of course, but that's irrelevant. It's a claim about facts. — Terrapin Station

I'm not following you on this one. Are you saying that facts can be false?

How Do You Do Knitting Without Free Will?

1. The ability to make choices is a necessary condition for choosing what garment to knit.
2. Choosing which garment to knit next is a necessary condition for knitting.
3. Without free will there is no ability to make choices.
4. Without the ability to make choices, choosing which garment to knit next is impossible.
5. If choosing which garment to knit next is impossible, knitting is impossible.
6. There is no free will.
7. Therefore, knitting is impossible.

The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the One

The Needs of the One Outweigh the Needs of the Many

Even the writers of Star Trek can't make up their minds :smile:

I don't have any opinion one way or the other, but you might want to check this alternative approach: Dark Forest Theory

Please no replies; I've nothing more to add — tim wood

If you feel you have nothing more to say, that's OK. But to request that no one replies? I don't think that is in the spirit of this forum. Just say "I give you the last word". I have done this.

Unless they're on a jury - or in almost any other position in which the quality of their moral compass and moral thinking matters. — tim wood

I would not serve on a jury if there was any chance that the death penalty could be applied.

That murder is wrong is trivially assumed by everyone, I think - almost everyone. At issue here is whether the non-cognitivist view is nonsense. I think it is. — tim wood

Given that "murder is wrong is trivially assumed by everyone", does it make any practical difference in the real world if the reasons for a person thinking that murder is wrong are based in a strong sense of personal morality - i.e. if they are non-cognitivists? I think not.

Since non-cognitivism is a species of irrealism about ethics, it should be unsurprising that many of its main motivations overlap with those for other versions of ethical irrealism

So non-cognitivism is a variation on a yet more generic framework? Dang, I missed that one - and that was the first sentence! :smile:

I did a quick search and ran into a different article in the same online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entitled "Moral Anti-Realism". I tried plowing through this, but got bogged down in a ticket of jargon and terminologies. In fact, even the author (or authors) of this article humorously acknowledge the difficulty in defining/characterizing the different philosophical positions.

Anyway - I appreciate your efforts to explain the various beasts in this menagerie of philosophical positions. I will try to absorb some of this, but it will be very slow going.

I have a question for you. Is murder wrong? — tim wood

Long post coming up, bear with me . . .

This discussion began with a reference to an entry in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entitled "Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism". The OP asked for opinions on this article.

I tried reading this and have to confess that I could not get through it - it was too dense and jargon laden for me. However, the summary at the top of the article is reasonably clear and I believe I get the gist of things.

Basically the article is a survey of contemporary philosophical schools of thought regarding statements about morality. The author groups these schools of thought into two large categories - Moral Cognitivism vs. Moral Non-Cognitivism. There are also many sub-categories.

Based on the opening summary, you seem to be on the side of Moral Cognitivism and in particular you seem to be a moral realist. Per the article, "... moral realists are cognitivists insofar as they think moral statements are apt for robust truth and falsity and that many of them are in fact true."
I.e., I believe you would assert that the statement "Murder is wrong" is a true statement. Please correct me if I am mis-representing you.

Terrapin, on the other hand, falls into the Non-cognitivist camp. Again, per the article, "non-cognitivists think that moral statements have no substantial truth conditions".

So asking the question "Is murder wrong, yes or no?" cannot possibly be a starting point for discussion since this statement assumes that Moral Cognitivism is correct. To continue this thought, even if a person were to answer this "No" - that too is a statement that only a Moral Cognitivist would make - albeit one that you would disagree with. I.e., by asserting that "Murder is OK" a person is asserting a truth value about a moral statement and (at the risk of repeating myself) non-cognitivists think that moral statements have no substantial truth conditions.

Putting it another way, the question "Is murder wrong, yes or no?" is *not* a simple question since there is a hidden assumption behind the question - namely that the question must be answered within the context of Moral Cognitivism.

So it is pointless to continue asking Terrapin the same question over and over since Terrapin is of the opinion that the question itself is wrong. Now could Terrapin find a way to answer you more clearly and respectfully? Perhaps - I wish both of you would be more respectful to each other; the name calling is distracting and does not contribute to the discussion. I do disagree with you that Terrapin is a troll, he may be arrogant, he may be totally wrong, but I am not seeing any trolling.

Oh - and I also disagree with Terrapin that you are a troll. :wink:

Perhaps you have already done so - in which case I apologize for the implication - but I respectfully suggest that you read the full article from the OP. I do not follow all the discussions, but there seem to be some interesting objections to Non-Cognitivism in sections 4 & 5. I could be wrong (it happens on a regular basis) but if you want to poke holes in Terrapin's Non-cognitivist position? That seems like a more fruitful approach.

Thanks for the compliment - I do have a scientific background. I mostly just lurk - it's fun reading some of these discussions, but it takes a lot of my very limited time to write a post that gets the point across with as few words as possible.

The dark matter hypothesis doesn't successfully match all the data, there are plenty of problems with it, — leo

Agree - as would every scientist who is working in this area.

How much work has been done on a model, and how easy it is to with the model with observations through fine-tuning, are two variables that have to be taken into account when we compare different models. — leo

How much work has been done on a model is irrelevant. If person A spends 10 years working on a hypothesis and person B spends 10 minutes, the only thing that matters is which hypothesis better fits the data.

For instance it's easy to come up with a model that successfully matches all the data while having a bunch of degrees of freedom. — leo

Well dang it man! If it's easy, then why are you posting here? Go come up with that better model. Fame & fortune will be your reward! :smile:

But kidding aside, it sounds to me that your gripe is that the dark matter hypothesis has been over-hyped, and that more work/attention should be paid to the alternative models. That may be the case. It may be that dark matter will turn out to be analogous to the Copernican model - and that some brilliant person (or persons) will come up with a new model that neatly explains all the data. That would be very cool indeed!

OR - it may be the case that dark matter is the correct explanation and we just didn't fully understand it.

Galactic rotation curves that are observed do not match the ones predicted by theory. Either it's because there is invisible matter, or because the theory is flawed. The discrepancy between observation and theory is not a detection of invisible matter, because we don't know that the theory is not flawed. I can't make it simpler than that. — leo

I have studied the subject for years, — leo

Given that you have studied the subject for years, you are certainly aware that numerous hypotheses have been proposed to explain the discrepancy, and that most of these involve changes/enhancements to the existing theories of gravitation. However, every alternative hypothesis - at least up to now - has made predictions which are not matched by the data.

Currently, dark matter is the hypothesis which best matches the data, but it is still only a hypothesis - it is not established theory. If you could present an alternative explanation that successfully matches all the data and does not involve hypothetical invisible particles, you would go down in history along with Einstein.

You have my blessings to go for it!

In the case of the creation account in Genesis, about the only people who believe it is literally true are called young-earth creationists. They believe that the earth was miraculously created a few thousand years ago and that the science of radio-carbon dating and everything of the kind is wrong.

Very few people believe that, — Wayfarer

While the number of people who believe in biblical inerrancy is slowly diminishing, that number is still quite large - and these people have significant influence on American (and global) politics.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

You might want to work on your punctuation. I glanced at this sentence and it read like this:

"No! People are not dinosaurs."

:smile: :grin: :razz: :razz:

These may have some relevance to the conversation:

Ignosticism
Theological Noncognitivism

@Terrapin Station @tim wood

I'm trying to follow this discussion. I thought I understood what was going on, but maybe not. Tim - can you clarify this:

@Terrapin Station Don't be obtuse. Take seeing. You don't see the tree, instead light is incident on your eyes, and then other things happen, resulting in what you and most folks call perception. All of which the tree has nothing to do with. You don't see the tree. — tim wood

When you said this, were you stating your position - OR - were you giving an illustration of what you perceive to be Terrapin's position (presumably in an attempt to demonstrate that his ideas are incorrect)?

BTW - and this goes out to both of you - I would not object if the level of invective came down a few notches . . . . :smile:

@tim wood @Terrapin Station
Somehow this discussion of illegal drugs has morphed into a discussion that maybe should go under the Philosophy of Mind category.

But as long as we’re here, I’ll jump into the waters - hopefully I can clarify them instead of muddying them.

The crux of the difference here (as I’m seeing it) is that Tim is asserting that mental activity is ultimately based in the physical world, whereas Terrapin is asserting that there is something fundamentally different about mental activity.

I'm with Tim on this, and here's my reasoning:

We already have machines that can measure mental activity - albeit at a very crude level. Will these machines advance to the point where we can measure mental activity at such a fine granular level that we can distinguish pleasurable physiological responses from un-pleasurable ones? That remains to be seen, but in my opinion this is possible.

So while the statement “Coffee ice cream is good” is clearly a subjective opinion, the statement “Tim Wood likes coffee ice cream” is a description of a measurable/observable state of affairs - namely that when Tim consumes coffee ice cream it produces a physiological response that Tim describes as 'liking'.

Of course I could be wrong. It could be that there is some unknown factor that will prevent us from ever measuring mental activity at that fine level of granularity. We can speculate that perhaps there is some quantum mechanical thing going on - and any attempt to measure mental activity at this level of granularity alters the very thing we’re trying to measure.

If I have misrepresented either of you, please gently correct me. . . . :smile:

@tim wood
I'd like to go back to our earlier conversation about exceeding the speed limit. If I followed you correctly you said (or at least implied) that speeding was not immoral because people typically do not deliberately speed, it's more of an unconscious decision - likely you are going along with the flow of traffic.

To be moral is to accept being a member of a community, many communities. It is to accept the obligation to the other, as they accept a similar obligation to you. — tim wood

Ahh, so on your basis, either way, the law always involves morality. — THX1138
Yes. Always and absolutely. — tim wood

But given that the laws are collectively decided upon by the community, when you speed you are violating the collective decision that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous not only to yourself but to other fellow citizens on the road. Is it as dangerous as taking heroin? I don't have an answer to that - and in any case it's irrelevant. The community has made the decision that speeding is illegal, and you must accept that obligation. And there is clearly no moral obligation requiring you to speed under normal circumstances.

So it seems to me that if you want to be consistent in your approach, then you must conclude that exceeding the speed limit is immoral.

Yes, as to illegality. As to harm, I'm agnostic on marijuana. . . etc — tim wood

It seems that we are introducing a new variable into the original question - namely that the immorality of drug taking depends on the level of self harm it might inflict on a person (along with any collateral damage to society).

You seem to be saying that occasional recreational marijuana use appears to be non-harmful and thus it is morally OK to consume marijuana - provided you do so in a place where it is legal.

However - and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you - you appear to be saying that it is immoral to consume certain drugs even if they are legal.

E.g., in your viewpoint is it immoral to consume heroin in a country where it is legal - say Portugal?

Leaning either way? — tim wood

I promise you that at some point in the conversation I will give my take on this and give you the opportunity to critique it. But right now I'm still trying to fully understand your position. It may seem like some of my questions come across as implied criticisms, but that is not my intent - at least not at this stage of the conversation. :smile:

Anyway, can we review your last comment/question - I did not quite follow what you were saying:

And, if you were in a country in which all drugs were legal, would there then be anything wrong with taking such drugs? If there is no law against and nothing else wrong, then it seems to be a choice of no moral significance. But is that an accurate representation of how it is taking them? — tim wood

On Monday December 10, 2012, the private consumption of marijuana was legalized in Colorado. So, as I understand your position, at 11:55 PM on Dec 9, 2012 it was immoral to consume marijuana and then at 12:01 AM it was no longer immoral. Or to put it another way, the immorality has nothing to do with the drug usage, but is only linked to it's illegality.

Am I accurately getting your position? Or am I getting this wrong and your position is that marijuana usage is immoral even if it is legal?

If you cannot understand that even the 'physicality of atoms' depends on the utility of that concept for humans, we will fail to communicate. — fresco

The words/language that we use to describe objects - and (however it works) the thoughts underlying them - do indeed depend on the utility of the concepts.

But our thoughts cannot change the underlying physicality of objects or atoms. The moon existed before humanity (and there were no observers), it existed when the early Greeks thought of the moon as the goddess Artemis, it exists today now that people have walked around on it, and it will exist in the future even if humanity self destructs and there are no observers (as we seem to be doing). But none of this changed or will change any of the atoms comprising the moon. The utility of our concepts - or the absence of any concepts - of the moon have had no impact on the physicality of the atoms that comprise the moon.

If this is naive realism, then I'm content with that label. I'll let you have the last word - which I will read. In the meanwhile I think I'll have a cup of water heated to a temperature of 180 degrees Fahrenheit suffused with coffee molecules.

BTW - just on a personal note, I don't know if it was deliberate, but I appreciate that in our exchanges you expressed yourself in plain language.

But now you. In the US, taking illegal drugs, moral? Immoral? Is there any way it can be moral? — tim wood

I don't have an answer to this - I'm still trying to figure it out. That's why I'm asking questions. :smile:

Speed limits are not so simple - a whole separate topic. — tim wood

What are the criteria for deciding which laws fall into a separate topic? Many people would consider taking certain drugs under certain situations to fall into the same category as exceeding the speed limit.

Note how the 'thinghood' of 'knife' is being negotiated according to its contextual utility.
It is my assertion that all 'things' are contextually defined and potentially subject to negotiation. You discard naive realism when you realize that. — fresco

I did not see any negotiation going on.

The punk's mental attitude changed when he realized he had picked the wrong people to rob. Sue's attitude changed in that she realized that Dundee could handle himself in the big city.

But the underlying "thinghood" of the knife did not change. It was exactly the same object both when it was hidden and after it was revealed, it did not somehow morph from a small knife to a big knife.

Of course the usage/meaning of words changes with context. Well know example is "John shot some bucks". What exactly went on? Did John go hunting or did John lose some money at Las Vegas? We need context to determine the meaning. But the underlying "reality" (AKA "objective truth", AKA "state of affairs", etc, etc) of what occurred to John did not change.

Naive realism is the default mode for seamless coping. You don't need to work at it. — fresco

What other modes are there?

Closer than most on TPF. As to a rule that might require a person to break a law, that's a tough one, nor can I think of one, outside of a situation of war or an equivalent. — tim wood

Here's a follow up question - but if you're uncomfortable divulging personal information I would not hold it against you for not answering.

Have you ever deliberately broken a law? Have you ever knowingly exceeded the speed limit or jaywalked?

Just here I'll mention that it's been my position that a) it is immoral to break the law, but that it is possible that a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it. I — tim wood

Tim - Apologies if this question was already asked and answered - I read through the discussion but did not see it.

If I'm following you, then there may be reasons for breaking a particular law if a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it, but in this particular case - illegal drugs - there is no such higher or greater morality that requires you to break it (as would be, say, in the situation of not telling the Nazis that you have hidden a Jewish escapee fro a concentration camp.)

Am I representing you correctly - or am I at least close?

Sorry, but for me ' existence' is merely a word like any other whose meaning/import is embedded in its context of usage, therefore I cannot argue for its non linguistic viability. The non philosophical contexts of its usage involve disputes about 'utility', which for the purposes of naive realistic posturing replace utility with the word 'existence' instead as though the disputed concept were independent of an observer.
Now once we entertain philosophical contexts of usage, I assert that 'existence' presupposes at least an element of naive realism. — fresco

It’s a tough job being a naive realist. All that posturing - it takes a lot out of a person.

Why just this morning I made breakfast. I ground up some coffee beans, made the coffee, poured some cold cereal in a bowl, added skim milk, ate it - and I also drank some coffee. And in all of this I did not once use any words whose meaning was embedded in it’s context of usage.

Dang it, all that posturing was hard work. I need a nap.

Yes

Now is there a 'mind-independent and language independent world'? No one knows — EricH

I think it couldn't be more obvious that there is, and I see the view that it's a problematic question as pretty juvenile if not infantile (if I'm being honest rather than trying to be PC and not hurt anyone's feelings). — Terrapin Station

I could have been clearer there. When I said 'no one knows', I meant that - at least to my knowledge - it cannot be proven philosophically/logically (or any other way) with absolute certainty.

That said, I have not seen any other explanation that makes any sense. In particular I do not philosophically commune with these notions that existence is some sort of language construct.

As far as I can tell we are on the same side - at least for this discussion.

I cannot philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world' even though we obviously operate, moment to moment, on that basis as though there were. — fresco

If I'm following, you move about the world and interact with it on the basis that there is an 'observer independent world'. You just don't philosophically commune with it?

Actually, now that I think about this, I'm sort of in agreement. I also do not philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world'. I simply accept that this is by far the only rational explanation for the way things are.

Yes. We obviously unconsciously 'engage with our environment' as well, just like other non verbal species. — fresco

From where I'm sitting it appears that you are using the word "environment" in the same way that most people user the word "existence". Please note that there are other substitutes for the word "existence". 'Reality', 'the universe", 'state of affairs', 'mind-independent and language-independent world', 'things in their own right', etc, etc.

Now is there a 'mind-independent and language independent world'? No one knows . We don't even know if this is the correct question to ask. But it is a rational choice to believe this. It simply means that you accept the evidence as presented to your mind by your physiological capabilities. And yes, we know that our senses can be fooled, but we also know how to determine this.

As you put it in another msg:

Common species physiology tends to imply large areas of agreement which we tend to call 'objects'. — fresco

For the word 'objects', substitute the word 'existence' or any of the other synonyms.

Also- and just for the record - besides unconsciously engaging with my environment? I also engage with my environment consciously. Or at least it certainly seems that way to me :smile:

Of course believers would not admit to the 'utility' argument, anymore than a naive realist would admit it equally applying to 'the existence of trees' ( or 'rocks', or any other 'thing')!
From a philosophical pov, the term 'naive realist' neatly avoids 'confusion'. — fresco

I'm not following you. I'm suggesting that you come up with a different word for "existence" in these philosophical pov discussions to avoid confusing it with the generally accepted usage.

Perhaps you can come up with something better, but for starters, maybe psv-existence?

The OLP situations I raise are ephemeral context bound episodes.
The post structuralist view recognizes that transience and seeks to generalize about them. — fresco

At the risk of extending this discussion far beyond its original bounds, given (among many other things) the on-going history of most major religions to impose their belief systems on non-believers, I do not consider these situations to be ephemeral; they are essential components of many of mankind's past & current conflicts.

But if a relative view is taken, we can validly say 'God exists for believers' because the concept has utility for their interactions..And 'God does not exist for atheists' because the reverse is true. The consequences (i.e.what matters) of this relativity view are that atheists' seeking to argue against 'God's existence' on the basis of 'evidence' are barking up the wrong tree. — fresco

No deeply religious person would agree with this definition/usage of the word existence. No fundamentalist Christian would ever say "I use the word God because the concept has utility in my interactions with other religious folk". When they say "God exists' they are using - or attempting to use - the word exists in the same sense as "The tree exists".

Now if - in the context of these philosophical discussions - you want to use the word existence differently than the average person, that may be a valid point of discussion. But it seems to me that instead of using the word existence, perhaps it would be clearer to came up with a new/different word (neologism) to avoid confusion.

Its not a question of 'belief'. Its a fundamental later phenomenological pov which follows Kant's non accessibility of noumena and therefore discards 'noumena' as vacuous, and which accepts Nietsche's rejection of any difference between 'description' and 'reality'. It is also supported by Maturana's argument that all we call 'observation' essentially involves 'languaging'. — fresco

Could/would you please re-phrase that answer in plain language? Thanks.

There is no one universal order that underlies all language. — Fooloso4

FYI - There's an interesting debate about this in the linguistics community: https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1269

Are you seeing that as controversial? If x is a state of affairs, then x isn't impossible. That seems fairly obvious, no? — Terrapin Station

Sure, but then what we're describing isn't actually a state of affairs — Terrapin Station

As far as I can tell we're in agreement on both points. However, my powers of persuasion are insufficient/inadequate when it comes to convincing AJJ of this.