So I think that things like legal laws, human rights claims, moral claims and general value claims, traditions and so on are just things we say and use to alter peoples behaviour under the guise that they are lawful. — Andrew4Handel

Under the guise that they are lawful, or truthful?

Fictionalism is the view in philosophy according to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of "make believe", of pretending to treat something as literally true (a "useful fiction"). — Wiki

While I agree that morality is constructed and historically has been sold as something that is objective and true, I wouldn't call myself a fictionalist, but rather a moral constructivist. The difference is that I don't think we should necessarily lie about their origin, or at least that's what I hope. Laws and morals need not be true and objective to be 'lawfull', their force can be derived from that fact that we agree on them.

I think fictionalism seems to lead to nihilism where society seems absurd because peoples behaviour seems to be not being governed by reason or rationality but by an unwarranted faith or unthinking allegiance to unjustified ideologies. — Andrew4Handel

I think it leads to nihilism because people stop believing in the fiction (and it works if they believe in it). And then society becomes absurd because people feel like they have to continue to act like they believe in the fiction because they think other people do, while in reality nobody really does... or at least very few.

Anyway my question to you would be, do you think we should get rid of morality all together then, since it is a fiction? And rely on what then? On people just getting along and acting rationally out of their own volition?

Under the guise that they are lawful, or truthful? — ChatteringMonkey

That is a good point. Possibly both. But value statements have law like or "ought" like qualities.

People say things like "You ought to lose some weight". You can get the impression that there is an ideal weight that we ought to be aiming for.
If you believe this is true than you may treat it as lawful.
So I suppose people may have to treat a claim as true before treating it as a law or an "Ought".

But I think the person delivering the claims is acting like they are factual and that they should be obeyed.

I like the term "reifying" or "reification" that treat something conceptual or controversial as concrete.

Laws and morals need not be true and objective to be 'lawfull', their force can be derived from that fact that we agree on them. — ChatteringMonkey

It depends on why you are agreeing on something. Obviously consensus doesn't equal right. Would people agree to agree to rules that they accepted were completely made up and not metaphysically binding but only pragmatic and a tool for some kind of social cohesion?

For example I don't think an atheist would follow religious rules regardless of their pragmatic or utilitarian value.
I believe people think there is a deeper validity to concepts like human rights and prohibitions against stealing and killing than just being pragmatic tools.

Anyway my question to you would be, do you think we should get rid of morality all together then, since it is a fiction? And rely on what then? On people just getting along and acting rationally out of their own volition? — ChatteringMonkey

I think we have to make weaker moral claims and these would lead to moderation in behaviour hopefully.

I don't know if a tyranny has existed based on agnosticism and a belief in the fallibility of values.

It depends on why you are agreeing on something. Obviously consensus doesn't equal right. Would people agree to agree to rules that they accepted were completely made up and not metaphysically binding but only pragmatic and a tool for some kind of social cohesion? — Andrew4Handel

That is the question indeed. Historically it didn't seem enough, which is one of the reasons they felt the need to invent God I think, to infuse morality with objectivity. Ultimately this is a question of psychology it seems. I hope we can get to a place where we can just agree on things and have that pull enough weight, but I wouldn't know if we can.

For example I don't think an atheist would follow religious rules regardless of their pragmatic or utilitarian value.
I believe people think there is a deeper validity to concepts like human rights and prohibitions against stealing and killing than just being pragmatic tools. — Andrew4Handel

And is this something that is learned, i.e. because we were taught to think about them as objective, and so could possibly be changed? Or is it something that is more or less psychologically hard-wired?

That is a good point. Possibly both. But value statements have law like or "ought" like qualities.

People say things like "You ought to lose some weight". You can get the impression that there is an ideal weight that we ought to be aiming for.
If you believe this is true than you may treat it as lawful.
So I suppose people may have to treat a claim as true before treating it as a law or an "Ought".

But I think the person delivering the claims is acting like they are factual and that they should be obeyed.

I like the term "reifying" or "reification" that treat something conceptual or controversial as concrete. — Andrew4Handel

Yes I agree people view morality that way, the question is if this is necessarily so, like I said in my comment above?

Also since some things rely on implicit values that almost everybody agrees to, these oughts might be very much equivalent to a factual claim. For instance, the claim you ought to lose weight might follow from the value 'health'.... if we agree on the value of health, then you ought to lose some weight. This just as an example to be clear, not that I think that losing weight is always good for your health.

I am a supporter of the fictionalist position. This means I believe that other than possible physical laws found in the natural sciences that other laws, norms beliefs and social structures are fictions (possibly useful fictions) — Andrew4Handel

Maybe "fictive" for "fiction"? For the rest, you seem to leave out reason, instead pivoting on arbitrariness, which would indeed tend towards nihilism. But there is reason, so while I find insight in your views, I cannot follow them to your, or any, conclusion.

And is this something that is learned, i.e. because we were taught to think about them as objective, and so could possibly be changed? Or is it something that is more or less psychologically hard-wired? — ChatteringMonkey

Also since some things rely on implicit values that almost everybody agrees to, these oughts might be very much equivalent to a factual claim. — ChatteringMonkey

Let's take homosexuality as in example. It seems to be a minority occurrence but that doesn't seem to entail it has less validity or value than the majority sexuality. It seems to be hardwired as well.

I don't think you can derive values from possibly hardwired behaviours and preferences and pit them against each other. Desirable and undesirable traits are probably somewhat hardwired.

I think the problem is not with identifying aspects of life we can improve but having the the justification of compelling other people to follow our values.

But still I believe that people including those that claim to be relativists treat values and social ideologies as more compelling than they are and use them to justify their own beliefs and actions..

Maybe "fictive" for "fiction"? For the rest, you seem to leave out reason, instead pivoting on arbitrariness, which would indeed tend towards nihilism. But there is reason, so while I find insight in your views, I cannot follow them to your, or any, conclusion. — tim wood

Reason appears to tell us that you can't get an "ought" from and "is".

I think reason sometimes amounts to a value system including the idea that we ought to be reasonable. Like the issue of weight loss I mentioned earlier. It may be good for your health to lose weight but should that compel you to lose weight.

I think one could join a religion because they like the music, architecture. poetry, the community and atmosphere. That may benefit their mental health but I couldn't do this and suspend my disbelief adequately.

Reason appears to tell us that you can't get an "ought" from and "is". — Andrew4Handel

Ah, but you can.

And your views on reasons to join a religion: perhaps before you throw out the water, you maybe should take a closer look to see what might be in it. It's not so much a question of suspending disbelief - were that all, then move it all entirely over to the fiction section - so much as discerning truth.

Let's take homosexuality as in example. It seems to be a minority occurrence but that doesn't seem to entail it has less validity or value than the majority sexuality. It seems to be hardwired as well.

I don't think you can derive values from possibly hardwired behaviours and preferences and pit them against each other. Desirable and undesirable traits are probably somewhat hardwired. — Andrew4Handel

Yes I didn't mean to imply that you can derive them from biology. There would just be agreement, convention as a basis for some values and consequent morality.

I think the problem is not with identifying aspects of life we can improve but having the the justification of compelling other people to follow our values. — Andrew4Handel

Aren't you having your cake and eating it too here? The idea that you need a justification to compel other people is a fictional ought too if you apply fictionalism consistently. So this seems like a problem to me, because if you believe that 1) no objective morality exists and 2) justification in objective morality is necessary to compel people to behave in a certain way, you are 3) effectively ruling out the possibly of morality from the start.

But still I believe that people including those that claim to be relativists treat values and social ideologies as more compelling than they are and use them to justify their own beliefs and actions.. — Andrew4Handel

Yes I agree, I don't think anybody is really a relativist (or nihilist) when it comes down to it... when you look at their actions. And it is often used as a rhetorical tool yes.

I am a supporter of the fictionalist position. This means I believe that other than possible physical laws found in the natural sciences that other laws, norms beliefs and social structures are fictions (possibly useful fictions) — Andrew4Handel

I think science claims that its laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Do you think one could regard social rules in the same way? "This is how banks, courts, neighbourhoods function, and this is how those things fall apart..."

I think science claims that its laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Do you think one could regard social rules in the same way? "This is how banks, courts, neighbourhoods function, and this is how those things fall apart..." — unenlightened

I thought that the point of a physical law was that you could not break it because no exceptions to the rule have been found so it is self enforcing.

It is a description but a description of something that is self enforcing and a supposed limitation.

I think there are many ways you could describe social institutions and how they work

For example you could claim tax laws are made to benefit the wealthy or that schools intend to indoctrinate children. In this sense there seems to be an intention or motive behind creating social structures and this can be and is challenged.

I don't think you can necessarily give an objective description of social structures and norms.
So someone may say tax laws are there for the equal redistribution of wealth and schools intend to enlighten people. Some people claim taxes are theft. In this sense it is a fluctuating, contested dynamic.

Aren't you having your cake and eating it too here? The idea that you need a justification to compel other people is a fictional ought too if you apply fictionalism consistently. So this seems like a problem to me, because if you believe that 1) no objective morality exists and 2) justification in objective morality is necessary to compel people to behave in a certain way, you are 3) effectively ruling out the possibly of morality from the start. — ChatteringMonkey

I have an intuition that some things are good and somethings are bad. I don't know where this comes from and I don't know how accurate it is.

I think if we concede that state of affairs "A" is better or preferable than state of affairs "B" we can aspire towards state "A". I don't think this is morality however in the sense that medicine is not usually coined in terms of morality but rather just an improvement in well being and medicine seems to rely on scientific discoveries about the best functioning of a body.

I think moral scepticism/nihilism is simply challenging the truth value of moral claims not claiming there is no preferable state of affairs.

But then we have the problem of teleology. The human body and its organs seem to have goals such as the heart pumping blood around the body. You could hypothetical have a healthy human body regardless of the preferences of the individual but social norms do not appear to have any kind of teleology like this to follow.

Another problem I have with morality and utopian or utilitarian attempts to improve society is that I think they are bound to fail. So I think it is impossible to not be morally contradictory/hypocritical and impossible to create a non exploitative society. If humans are just a another part of nature then we see that nature appears inherently flawed and not something we can transcend.

However I am interested in what society would look like if we looked at claims outside of the natural science as weak, contestable and pragmatic.

I can agree more or less with the moral sceptic part, when it comes to truth value of moral claims at least. I do think however that evaluating morality on the truth-axis is to some extend missing the point.... as I think we create values and morality. Values meaning here more or less the same thing as preferring state 'A' over 'B', but more abstracted and synthesized already.

But then we have the problem of teleology. The human body and its organs seem to have goals such as the heart pumping blood around the body. You could hypothetical have a healthy human body regardless of the preferences of the individual but social norms do not appear to have any kind of teleology like this to follow. — Andrew4Handel

If you mean that we can't find a teleology for them in nature and biology, then yes, I agree. I think we create them because we value some things over others, and so we want people to behave to attain those values. And personally I think this is only a problem if you expect to find objective morality in the first place.

Another problem I have with morality and utopian or utilitarian attempts to improve society is that I think they are bound to fail. So I think it is impossible to not be morally contradictory/hypocritical and impossible to create a non exploitative society. If humans are just a another part of nature then we see that nature appears inherently flawed and not something we can transcend. — Andrew4Handel

That would depend on how high you set the bar, right? If you expect a society of saints, then yes that won't work. But on smaller scales and for less utopian goals there does seem to be some utility. For instance, I think moms can be successful in teaching Johnny not to hit his little sister.

However I am interested in what society would look like if we looked at claims outside of the natural science as weak, contestable and pragmatic. — Andrew4Handel

Yes by and large, although I'd probably say that they are no claims to truths at all, so neither weak or strong. And if we realise that we create them, it is already implied that they are up for revision if they don't serve our ends (anymore).

That would depend on how high you set the bar, right? If you expect a society of saints, then yes that won't work. But on smaller scales and for less utopian goals there does seem to be some utility. For instance, I think moms can be successful in teaching Johnny not to hit his little sister. — ChatteringMonkey

I can use the example of veganism here.

The impression vegans give is that humans are the main source of animal suffering. However in the wild animals are eaten alive. Most deer starve to death and there are no old persons homes for animals.

Nature has been presented like a kind of Disney story.

I don't think it is possible to take the death, predation and starvation out of nature and still have life. If no one died the world would soon become over populated. Dying organisms are part of the cycle of life.

Some people would argue we should be just like nature (survival of the fittest?) and not try to transcend it. Are our attempts to control or thwart nature sustainable or psychologically healthy? I think our current era of prosperity (which is not available to many people) is ahistoric and we have to have faith that it is sustainable.

I think fictionalism seems to lead to nihilism — Andrew4Handel

So if you advocate for fictionalism, then you're also advocating for nihilism?

Reason appears to tell us that you can't get an "ought" from and "is". — Andrew4Handel

No, reason didn't tell us that. David Hume did.

So if you advocate for fictionalism, then you're also advocating for nihilism? — Wayfarer

It depends what nihilism means. Personally I have found no meaning out of life. But the nature of meaning is a huge topic. If people kill themselves does that mean they felt life was not meaningful?

Is genocide meaningful or nihilistic?

Do physical laws amount to meaning?

Is the meaning of words special? (I think the meaning of words is an indisputable case of meaning)(We convey information to one another) (Yet language is a mysterious area where these kinds of symbolic representations are not understood.)

No, reason didn't tell us that. David Hume did. — Wayfarer

But he used reason. I think his formulation is logical and logic is a key postulate of reason.

No, reason didn't tell us that. David Hume did. — Wayfarer

Is there a difference? /s

The laws of natural sciences are made up too. It’s being useful that makes them anything other than arbitrary. They are useful as descriptions of the world. Ones that describe the world well are better in that way than ones that don’t.

Normative laws are not useful as descriptions of the world, but then, describing the world isn’t what they are trying to do in the first place. What are they trying to do? Might any of them be more or less useful than others towards that end? And wouldn’t that measure of usefulness be equally a basis to decide that some are better or worse than others, more right or wrong? In a different sense than is used of descriptive laws, but still a sense, which is all you need to salvage normativity from nihilism or other relativism.

No, reason didn't tell us that. David Hume did.
— Wayfarer

Is there a difference? /s — Marchesk

It’s characteristic of Hume, ‘the godfather of positivism’. The ‘is/ought’ problem was very much a consequence of early modern philosophy and the Cartesian split between mind and body. What was measurable was subject to precise quantification - is/is not - whilst what was good, proper or true was not. Hence the fact/value dichotomy, hard problem of consciousness, and the rest.

It depends what nihilism means. Personally I have found no meaning out of life. But the nature of meaning is a huge topic. If people kill themselves does that mean they felt life was not meaningful?

Is genocide meaningful or nihilistic?

Do physical laws amount to meaning? — Andrew4Handel

Let’s not try to swallow the ocean. Nihilism is variously interpreted as nothing is real, nothing matters, or nothing has any real value. As is well-known, Nietzsche (and I don’t want to turn this into a thread about him, but anyway) predicted that nihilism was the fate of modernity. I think he was right in that. Nihilism doesn’t have to comprise enormous emotional upheaval; it can be a shrug, a ‘whatever’. ‘Nothing matters’. It’s easy to be in that space, almost commonplace. So I suppose the contrary to that is that it does matter - what you do, what you believe, how you live your life, matters. Quite why, of course, is the problem.

Regarding physical laws - the very notion of law is descended from the idea that there was a God who set these laws. It was merely assumed in the older days. But as God is now presumed dead, then who underwrites those laws? Are they really laws? You’ll notice they’re kind of shrugged off nowadays, hey, they’re useful, and all, but the nihilist view is that there’s nothing meaningful about them, it’s just the habits that stuff develops, given a few billion years. Whereas in classical philosophy, the same mind which authored those laws was reflected in miniature in the rational mind of man.

I thought that the point of a physical law was that you could not break it because no exceptions to the rule have been found so it is self enforcing. — Andrew4Handel

I think most physical laws are statistical based. Water is always liquid except when it it freezes or boils. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, except radioactivity.

I don't think you can necessarily give an objective description of social structures and norms.
So someone may say tax laws are there for the equal redistribution of wealth and schools intend to enlighten people. — Andrew4Handel

Well I don't know what gravity is for either. Taxes are government collecting money from people. Schools are collective child-minding facilities. Gravity is stuff tending to fall down, law is societies regulate their relations.

Some people would argue we should be just like nature (survival of the fittest?) and not try to transcend it. Are our attempts to control or thwart nature sustainable or psychologically healthy? I think our current era of prosperity (which is not available to many people) is ahistoric and we have to have faith that it is sustainable. — Andrew4Handel

It certainly is unprecedented and unique, but then again it's not like there's a script history has to follow. Is it psychologically healthy and sustainable? Maybe not, but that is a bit moot point if we don't really have all that much choice in the matter. We are here now with a couple of billion people on earth. The more interesting question to me is where do we go from here?

I'd say at this point there is no way back, and we will have to make it work somehow precisely because there are no guarantees that it will. And hearkening back to stories of old, like nature, nationalism or religions won't do the trick I think, because those were geared to a world that doesn't exist anymore. The world has changed fundamentally and we can take responsibility to make it work or not... a little bit of lucidity, creativity and trust in ourselves and we could be off.

Well I don't know what gravity is for either. Taxes are government collecting money from people. Schools are collective child-minding facilities. Gravity is stuff tending to fall down, law is societies regulate their relations. — unenlightened

The point is that gravity will it impose itself on you but social structures are imposed by other people based on what appears to be false beliefs and not by regularities and restrictions found in nature..

What motivates the creation of social structures is what is not objective.

It could be that there are no laws of physics and that is an illusion which would feed into a complete nihilism. What I want to stress is the non factual, unjustified nature of social claims that influence behaviour.

It is different also than fictionalism about maths and numbers because maths is not making value claims. To me maths is a set of axioms and the application of logic to discover patterns that does not need to rely on absolutism.

Societies have been structured around value claims which with the support of law are said to justify peoples and nations actions.

We are here now with a couple of billion people on earth. The more interesting question to me is where do we go from here?

I'd say at this point there is no way back(...) — ChatteringMonkey

It depends what you mean by going back. Environmentalist would like to see a reduction in the human population and sustainable and more ecologically integrated ways of functioning.

I think where ever we should go should probably guided by reason and exposing and exploring fictions is part of that process.

And wouldn’t that measure of usefulness be equally a basis to decide that some are better or worse than others, more right or wrong? — Pfhorrest

It depends what you mean? Useful to whom. Why should usefulness to one set of desires take precedence over usefulness to another set of desires?

The impression I get from scientists is that they they have discovered laws that are a fundamental basis for reality and not just something pragmatic.

I think to make pragmatic laws they should be based on an acknowledgement that the rules are fictional and instrumental because I think following made up rules without acknowledging them as such is a kind of nihilism.

Joining late, and I'll prove it to you. (That I'm joining late.)

I always answer the OP. Not the issue of the side-track.

Calling physical laws and human-created laws (be they legal, traditional, spiritual) is an equivocation in the Aristotelian sense of the fallacy.

Physical laws don't exist purely in nature outside of the human sphere. They are human-created solidified opinions how the world works. The physical world does not operate on laws of the physical world. We don't know what the physical world operates on, most likely it's a deterministic effort.

So physical laws exist inasmuch as human opinions exist.

Other laws that made BY humans FOR humans, are guides. That's why it's no surprize they are basically crowd-control devices, set up by the ruling class to keep the non-ruling class in their control.

Human-created laws (not human-discovered laws) and their effected behaviour in humans only look stupid and crazy, and they do, because the practice was a solidly good idea at one point, which they therefore implemented, it became a tradition, and the tradition still lives, with or without conviction that it helps anyone in anything. They look ridiculous because knowledge proved they are futile. Some believe still that traditional rituals are not futile. But then why do they look ridiculous.

The point is that gravity will it impose itself on you but social structures are imposed by other people based on what appears to be false beliefs and not by regularities and restrictions found in nature. — Andrew4Handel

It's a weak point and a largely false belief. Firstly, other people are as real as gravity, and secondly, social structures are almost invariably based on necessities of interdependence. Which side of the road we drive on is arbitrary, but that we all drive on the same side is a physical necessity just as implacable as gravity, and the situation is akin to a boulder balanced on a hill top that is bound to roll down one way or another.

This forum has rules that are necessary to its being a place of discussion and not full of thoughtless rubbish. If you think they are based on false beliefs, try a site where they do not have them and compare.

Some people would argue we should be just like nature (survival of the fittest?) and not try to transcend it. Are our attempts to control or thwart nature sustainable or psychologically healthy? I think our current era of prosperity (which is not available to many people) is ahistoric and we have to have faith that it is sustainable. — Andrew4Handel

This just gets at the issue with saying something like "you can't get an ought from an is". It stops you from evaluating whether things are working properly. Sure, you can say the economy is efficient, but then why investigate the efficiency? Why not waste all of our resources on bitcoin? You can say everyone might as well be selfish, but then why even pursue your own interest? Any question about what to do becomes undecidable.

The Greek answer to the question was to say that each thing has a function, and "good" merely means fulfilling this function.