If a certain belief leads to good actions, then why can't we conclude that we ought to hold that belief? — Metaphysician Undercover
You insist that we ought to believe the truth, but why? Unless there is a good which comes from believing the truth, which is better than the good which comes from believing the lie, then this claim is unfounded. Do you have a principle whereby it is demonstrated that believing the truth is always better than believing a lie? — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't see the bottomless pit. The bottom is what is good. You want to make the bottom the truth. Clearly these two are not equivalent, so why do you give supremacy to truth over good? I give supremacy to good because human beings are active beings, involved in doing things, activity is the natural tendency for the human being and to be sedentary is unhealthy. Therefore I assume that beliefs are for the sake of these activities which we engage in, and the beliefs which we ought to hold are the ones which are conducive to good actions. If a true belief is conducive to good actions then it is one that we ought to hold. If it is not, then there is no reason to hold it. And if a false belief is conducive to good actions, then it ought to be held. — Metaphysician Undercover
A belief needs to be judged in relation to something in order to determine whether or not we ought to hold it. Being fallible human beings, with fallible minds, we have no guarantee that what we think is the truth is really the truth, so we cannot judge our beliefs in relation to the truth. Therefore we need to judge whether or not we ought to hold this or that belief in relation to something other than the truth. I think that we ought to judge the beliefs in relation to the actions which they bring about, whether they bring about good or bad activities. — Metaphysician Undercover
It would be possible to take the same actions without believing the lie, so believing the lie isn’t strictly necessary. — AJJ
Is it even possible for bad things to come from believing the truth? — AJJ
What is true is good. I’ve already said you can form the same bottomless pit with “good”. Is it good to believe true things? No? Well is it good to believe that?. And so on. Eventually you’re forced to say yes, because it’s good to believe true things, and we ought to do things that are good. — AJJ
We always judge our beliefs in relation to the truth, it’s impossible to do otherwise. By saying, “I’m taking this action not because I’m certain it’s true, but because good will come of it”, you’re actually saying, “I’m taking this action because I believe it is true that good will come of it, and we ought to believe true things.” — AJJ
But it's not absurd to deny that facts are what we ought to believe, as the example of the noble lie demonstrates. It is arguable that in some cases it's for the person's own good to believe a lie. If that's the case, then it's not the facts which ought to be believed. We ought to believe what is good for us to believe, regardless of the facts. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ought vb. - Expresses an emotional, practical, or other reason for doing something. — WordWeb
Can't access that section of the book, but I think there is something in the argument. — Wayfarer
How do you suggest that we could change the belief of what is required, and still come up with the same action as being required for the new belief. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not talking about where bad things come from, I'm talking about where good things come from. — Metaphysician Undercover
If good things are the things which are desired, as needed, then we ought to tailor our beliefs such that they naturally bring about good things. If, in the process of judging a particular belief, the possibility that it might bring about something bad comes up, then we need to consider this. But we start from a good, what is needed, and until believing the truth is demonstrated as something needed, or good, truth has no relevance. — Metaphysician Undercover
You don't seem to be grasping the principle. Truth is good and good is truth, is a bottomless pit, because it's circular. To avoid the circle (bottomless pit) we need to ground something. So we ground "good" in action, activity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Knowing the truth does not necessitate any particular actions. So we cannot say that it's good to know the truth until we can say what good the truth brings about. However, we can say that a certain belief is good, because it brings about good actions, regardless of whether or not it is true. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is not true at all. Our beliefs regarding actions are based in probability. We proceed when there is a high probability of success, not when we are certain that it is true that there will be success. — Metaphysician Undercover
The only way we can judge something to be probable is in reference to the truth that it is probable. — AJJ
I don’t know what you’re struggling with. — AJJ
The only way we can judge something to be probable is in reference to the truth that it is probable. — AJJ
I don’t know what you’re struggling with. We can only judge that a coin has a 50/50 chance of landing on tails by referring to the mathematical truth that this is the case. If there was no truth to refer to, you couldn’t possible have any idea of the outcome. — AJJ
If I’m lied to and told there is no erupting volcano but I need to leave the area for some other innocuous reason, then I won’t panic and run over people. But neither will I panic and run over people if I’ve learned that this is something I shouldn’t do anyway. The ought resides in the action/non-action, not in believing the lie. — AJJ
And I was saying that bad things cannot come from truth, but they obviously can from lies. — AJJ
And all the time you’re doing this you are appealing to the truth; the truth of what is good, and whether or not good will come of a certain belief or an action. Why do we appeal to these truths if it is not good to do so, if it’s not the case that we ought to? — AJJ
just don’t think you’ve thought about this. Of course knowing the truth necessitates action. The only way it wouldn’t would be if it were true that we should never take any actions. — AJJ
Again, you just haven’t thought about this. — AJJ
I said that we can only judge something to be probable by referring to the truth that it is, i.e. by judging in relation to the truth. — AJJ
The point I made though, is that the action comes about as a result of the belief. If the reason for leaving is innocuous, then you will not see the need to leave, and you will not necessarily leave. So the example doesn't bring to the discussion what you want it to bring. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is not the case. We act when we believe good will come from the action. In no way am I claiming that we act when we think that we know the truth about what is good. This is what I said about actions being based in the probability of success, not in the certainty of truth or falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ugly fallacious logic. It is not true that we should never take any actions. Therefore we should take action now.
You need to explain how knowing the truth necessitates action. — Metaphysician Undercover
I said that we can only judge something to be probable by referring to the truth that it is, i.e. by judging in relation to the truth.
— AJJ
And I said that this is normally taken for granted. Does it really need stating, even here, in the midst of a debate in a philosophy forum? I suspect not. — Pattern-chaser
understand our actions are based on our beliefs. I understand you as saying that this means it can be the case that we ought to believe certain lies. I’m saying that it isn’t that we ought to believe the lies, but that we ought to act in the way the lie facilitates. My example illustrated this; you’re just being a pedant. — AJJ
We ought to believe what is true, since believing what is true leads to doing good anyway, unless you can give an example where this wouldn’t be the case, where believing the truth would lead to doing wrong. — AJJ
We act when we believe it is true that good will come of the action. We appeal to the truth. — AJJ
Your third sentence there contradicts the second; to believe that good will come from an action is to think you know the truth about what is good. — AJJ
Say we know it is true that we ought to be kind to others. This necessitates that we be kind to others, otherwise we would not be abiding by the truth. — AJJ
Aye, well maybe it is true mate, but don’t worry about it. No one is going to force you to be a Christian. — AJJ
It seems to me to be a sound reason to believe in objective values: — AJJ
As I explained, your example failed, and I still don't think that what you claim is possible. Our actions are tailored to our beliefs, the actions are designed to bring about what is believed. I really do not see how it is possible to change the belief and expect that the different belief would bring about the same action. You seem to believe that this could be done, but your example did not show it. — Metaphysician Undercover
I gave you my example, one could believe what is true, and still be sedentary. Therefore believing what is true does not necessarily lead to doing good actions. Doing wrong is irrelevant because one could not do what is good without doing wrong, simply by being inactive. Being inactive is neither doing good nor doing wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover
We act when we believe it is true that good will come of the action. We appeal to the truth.
— AJJ
This is false, and I went through it already. When I proceed with a project, a plan, I believe that there is a high probability that I will be successful, and that good will come from the procedure. When I start the procedure I do not believe that it is true that good will come from the action because I have respect for the fact that failure is possible, there could be an accident, and harm could come from the procedure instead. — Metaphysician Undercover
When judging whether or not to proceed with an action, we often consult truths to aid us in the judgement, but there is no truth to whether or not the action will be successful, prior to carrying out the action, and to believe that there is is to believe a falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your third sentence there contradicts the second; to believe that good will come from an action is to think you know the truth about what is good.
— AJJ
There's no contradiction. Do you recognize the difference between saying "X is probably the case", and "it is true that X is the case". When I believe that my action will be successful, and I have the confidence to proceed, I do not believe "it is true that my action will be successful", I believe "my action will probably be successful". — Metaphysician Undercover
It is you who is being pedantic, trying to restrict the use of "believe" to truth. So you claim "I believe I will be successful" means "I believe it is true that I will be successful". But believing does not necessarily imply truth, as your pedantic ways suggest. It sometimes means to have faith and confidence, and this is the case when we believe in the success of our actions. When we believe in our actions, we have faith in our ability to judge, and confidence that the good will come from the action. Truth is not relevant here. — Metaphysician Undercover
Say we know it is true that we ought to be kind to others. This necessitates that we be kind to others, otherwise we would not be abiding by the truth.
— AJJ
Do you not see the unwarranted jump which you are making here? You are jumping from knowing or believing the truth to "abiding by the truth". Knowing the truth does not make one abide by the truth. People often know what they ought to do, yet act in a contrary way, like when they knowingly break the law. This is what I've been trying to tell you, knowing the truth does not inspire one to act well, it is something else which inspires morality. And this is why the inspiration to be moral must take priority over the inspiration to know the truth — Metaphysician Undercover
No, because it’s not true that we should be sedentary. — AJJ
I’ve been saying that we judge our actions in relation to the truth, or our perception of it. — AJJ
To believe that good will (or might) come from something is to believe you know the truth about what good is, otherwise how would you have any idea that good will come from something? It doesn’t seem to me that what you’ve said there challenges this. — AJJ
To have faith in something is to have faith that it is true. To have confidence in something is to have confidence that it is true. This isn’t pedantry, it’s pointing out the obvious. — AJJ
We can only be moral if we first know the truth about what is moral. — AJJ
No, because it’s not true that we should be sedentary.
— AJJ
But you haven't explained how knowing that it is true that one ought to do something leads to the person actually doing something. — Metaphysician Undercover
I’ve been saying that we judge our actions in relation to the truth, or our perception of it.
— AJJ
And I do not agree with that, for good reasons, as I explained. — Metaphysician Undercover
To believe that good will (or might) come from something is to believe you know the truth about what good is, otherwise how would you have any idea that good will come from something? It doesn’t seem to me that what you’ve said there challenges this.
— AJJ
This is ridiculous. You are reducing confidence to a belief in truth, when in reality the confidence which is required to proceed with an action has nothing to do with the apprehension of truth. If an action worked for me in the past, I will proceed with it again. I may even develop a habit. I am proceeding with the action to bring about what I perceive as a good, not because I believe that I know the truth about what good is. — Metaphysician Undercover
To have faith in something is to have faith that it is true. To have confidence in something is to have confidence that it is true. This isn’t pedantry, it’s pointing out the obvious.
— AJJ
Again, this is ridiculous. If you want to reduce the faith and confidence which is required for the actions of an animal such as a human being, to a matter of believing that something is true, then that's your own business. But if you are inclined toward understand the truth about what motivates animals to act, and what produces the faith and courage required for such acts, you would be wise to dismiss this premise as faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover
We can only be moral if we first know the truth about what is moral.
— AJJ
We teach children to act properly when they are far too young to understand the "truth about what is moral". Only at a much later age, if they study philosophy, will they come to understand about what it is to be moral. So it is very clearly untrue that we must understand the truth about what is moral, before we can be moral. In reality we learn to act morally long before we understand the truth about what it means to be moral. In fact, philosophers today continue to debate about the truth of what it means to be moral, and if they are respectable philosophers they recognize that the truth about what it is to be moral has not yet been uncovered. — Metaphysician Undercover
It seems to me to be a sound reason to believe in objective values:
— AJJ
It it not a matter of whether I or anyone else is being forced to be a Christian. It is a question about whether his argument is sound. It's not. I suppose that those who already believe what he is claiming believe that one ought to believe it but it does not hold water as a philosophical argument. — Fooloso4
Ohh! So it’s not a sound argument. It doesn’t hold water as a philosophical argument. Right, my mistake everyone, I had no idea this was so simple. — AJJ
I said that we can only judge something to be probable by referring to the truth that it is, i.e. by judging in relation to the truth.
— AJJ
And I said that this is normally taken for granted. Does it really need stating, even here, in the midst of a debate in a philosophy forum? I suspect not. — Pattern-chaser
What? I explain the context of my remark, you quote my remark back to me without the context. I was responding to a statement that denied what you rightly acknowledge as the obvious. — AJJ
I was commenting on how you twisted your sentences to include 'The Truth' - an important concept, but one which is nowhere near central to the discussion going on. Not being a central issue, The Truth is (a) usually taken for granted, and (b) not really relevant to this particular discussion. But you are trying to drag it in.... — Pattern-chaser
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.