Approximating Moral Facts

ToothyMaw

My idea is that analyzing approximate moral facts in terms of the semantics of their constituent parts and comparing the combinations of constituent parts to the outcomes arrived at by their application could yield a basis for combining said constituent parts into a more accurate approximation of moral facts through trial and error.

Basically you would insert different combinations of chunks of meaning into an ever-closer approximation based upon how you know they interact from trial and error, and then check the consistency/closeness of the approximation against its constituent parts.

For instance, we know that combining the statement “it is wrong to steal on the sabbath” with “it is okay to steal on days that are not considered holy” yields the normative statement: “it is wrong to steal on the sabbath, but you can steal on some days that aren’t the sabbath”. We need only check this law against the truth of its constituent parts to then decide whether or not it is a valid approximation. If it is consistent, and this one is, then we have a law governing when it is okay to steal - on some days other than the sabbath. Exactly which days it would be okay to steal on would require more testing.

Thus, it would seem that if we know what some moral facts might be, we could use them to approximate genuine moral facts by applying the process over and over again.

Furthermore, taking some inspiration from Chaos Theory: maybe this process could potentially yield an understanding of underlying laws governing morality by analyzing the trends in the formation of these moral facts? Perhaps certain qualities of combinations of chunks of meaning are more likely to produce valid approximations? And then maybe these underlying laws could be plugged into the process to find exact moral facts?

ToothyMaw

It would seem that the approximate moral facts started with would have to be within a certain range of closeness to their real counterparts so that the approximations built off of them wouldn't be drastically off the mark, however.

Removed my stupid joke. Sorry.

TheMadFool

A marvellous idea. Don't take the sentence stating a rule as a single semantic unit and leave it at that. Also include the concepts/ideas that will obviously appear as phrases or words. See that the rule itself, as a whole, squares with the the parts, the constiuent concepts/ideas. The catch is this isn't new? It's the way it's always been done, not just with rules but every sentence that was, is, will be uttered. I don't get it! :chin:

ToothyMaw

Don't take the sentence stating a rule as a single semantic unit and leave it at that. Also include the concepts/ideas that will obviously appear as phrases or words. — TheMadFool

The semantic units could be anything from a whole sentence to just a few words. Including the ideas/concepts that appear as words or phrases would complicate things because it is difficult to square the compatibility of a concept with another. Keeping it as basic as possible would allow for greater efficiency in the calculations.

See that the rule itself, as a whole, squares with the the parts, the constiuent concepts/ideas. — TheMadFool

As I wrote above.

The catch is this isn't new? It's the way it's always been done, not just with rules but every sentence that was, is, will be uttered. I don't get it! — TheMadFool

The best way I can think of this is that many sentences could potentially be compatible with a number of phrases, but they don't necessarily have to be understood in those terms to make sense. In my process the sentences/laws must accurately represent all of their pre-specified constituent parts to be valid (approximations).

I really need to read more about linguistics; I'm sure there are better words for what I am trying to say.

TheMadFool

↪ToothyMaw

Keep at it ToothyMaw. I'm sure there's light at the end of tunnel!

ToothyMaw

↪TheMadFool

I will keep at it, thanks.

TheMadFool

↪ToothyMaw

Good luck! :up:

god must be atheist

My idea is that analyzing approximate moral facts in terms of the semantics of their constituent parts and comparing the combinations of constituent parts to the outcomes arrived at by their application could yield a basis for combining said constituent parts into a more accurate approximation of moral facts through trial and error. — ToothyMaw

Facts can't be argued. There are no such things as facts that are approximate. Our opinion based on our differences of observation may be approximations. But facts are never approximate.

Furthermore, to speak about moral facts, you need to know what they are. Do you have a description of what makes a fact a moral fact? A completely accurate conceptual definition that delineates moral facts from other facts? If yes, I'd like you to show what it is. Without a benchmark, you can't approximate. And the benchmark is missing.

tim wood

There are no such things as facts that are approximate. Our opinion based on our differences of observation may be approximations. But facts are never approximate. — god must be atheist

All facts are approximate. No facts are absolute - except as we say they are, but then, that's our saying. Of course, many facts are as accurate as they need to be - but still approximate.

god must be atheist

For instance, we know that combining the statement “it is wrong to steal on the sabbath” with “it is okay to steal on days that are not considered holy” yields the normative statement: “it is wrong to steal on the sabbath, but you can steal on some days that aren’t the sabbath”. We need only check this law against the truth of its constituent parts to then decide whether or not it is a valid approximation. If it is consistent, and this one is, then we have a law governing when it is okay to steal - on some days other than the sabbath. Exactly which days it would be okay to steal on would require more testing. — ToothyMaw

This paragraph begs the question. How do we know the statements reflect morality? There is actually no logical connection between "it is wrong to steal on the Sabbath" and anything wrong stealing on the Sabbath. Semantically your theory may work, but it is not tied to reality, and thus, it is not something that says anything.

god must be atheist

All facts are approximate. No facts are absolute - except as we say they are, but then, that's our saying. Of course, many facts are as accurate as they need to be - but still approximate. — tim wood

You need to learn the meaning of "fact". Sorry, tim, but a fact is not subject of debate for whether it is this way or that way. It is our perceptions of the fact that we argue. You said it so in many other threads, so please don't contradict yourself for the sake of the argument.

180 Proof

All facts are approximate. — tim wood

All facts are contingent. Explanations, even descriptions, of facts are approximate (i.e. fallibilistic).

Furthermore, to speak about moral facts, you need to know what they are. Do you have a description of what makes a fact a moral fact? A completely accurate conceptual definition that delineates moral facts from other facts? If yes, I'd like you to show what it is. — god must be atheist

Moral facts ...

ToothyMaw

Facts can't be argued. There are no such things as facts that are approximate. Our opinion based on our differences of observation may be approximations. But facts are never approximate. — god must be atheist

I expected this. We can get close to expressing a fact, and so it is an approximate fact. Never claimed they were beyond dispute. But I did say that there might be a way of using approximate facts to arrive at less approximate (or even real) facts given the approximate facts started with are within a certain range of their real counterparts. It is just difficult to say whether or not we can indeed approximate facts the way a computer can approximate things in a simulation.

Why I think there are approximate moral facts is that, according to a moral realist, there are objective features of the world that make the propositions contained in ethical sentences true. If we ground ethical sentences in such things it follows that we can approximate a moral fact if the approximate moral fact is sufficiently close to the actual moral fact such as that it functions no differently given a certain set of true ethical sentences; the approximate moral fact would also merely represent the features of the world that would make the corresponding moral fact true, without regard to whether or not it contradicts or represents other actual moral facts inaccurately.

Furthermore, to speak about moral facts, you need to know what they are. Do you have a description of what makes a fact a moral fact? A completely accurate conceptual definition that delineates moral facts from other facts? If yes, I'd like you to show what it is. Without a benchmark, you can't approximate. And the benchmark is missing. — god must be atheist

A moral fact is a fact that represents a facet of objective morality.
.

This paragraph begs the question. How do we know the statements reflect morality? There is actually no logical connection between "it is wrong to steal on the Sabbath" and anything wrong stealing on the Sabbath. Semantically your theory may work, but it is not tied to reality, and thus, it is not something that says anything. — god must be atheist

I'm presupposing that the statements are moral merely to show how the heuristic would work. I obviously don't actually think that I just made a universal law that governs when it is okay to steal.

Without a benchmark, you can't approximate. And the benchmark is missing. — god must be atheist

The benchmark is indeed the biggest issue: in order to apply my heuristic we would need a good idea of a few moral facts to begin with. But then again I already said that in the OP.

ToothyMaw

↪180 Proof

Good point - as usual. Perhaps I should call them contingent facts.

ToothyMaw

↪god must be atheist

I mean, surely you recognize that one sentence can have almost the same meaning as another? That a sentence can approximate the meaning of another sentence, or at least approach it?

Semantically your theory may work, but it is not tied to reality, and thus, it is not something that says anything. — god must be atheist

It's a heuristic, not a comprehensive theory.

hope

yield an understanding of underlying laws governing morality — ToothyMaw

Morality is just fairness. Once you realize that everything will become simple and clear.

Approximating Moral Facts

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions