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
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
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
Under the guise that they are lawful, or truthful? — ChatteringMonkey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ah, but you can.Reason appears to tell us that you can't get an "ought" from and "is". — Andrew4Handel
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
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
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
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..." — unenlightened
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
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
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
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
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 think fictionalism seems to lead to nihilism — Andrew4Handel
Reason appears to tell us that you can't get an "ought" from and "is". — Andrew4Handel
So if you advocate for fictionalism, then you're also advocating for nihilism? — Wayfarer
No, reason didn't tell us that. David Hume did. — Wayfarer
No, reason didn't tell us that. David Hume did.
— Wayfarer
Is there a difference? /s — Marchesk
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.