Oh dear… I guess I have a hard time resisting responding to sweeping generalizations like “no scientist abides by it”. Was it really necessary to pull that one out of your ass rather than saying something more measured and careful like ‘I hope not too many scientists abide by it’? — Joshs
I’m reluctant to get into the main topic of the op when this is the way you deal with secondary topics. — Joshs
What do you suppose would be the outcome of a poll of philosophers concerning the ‘absolute quackery’ status of mathematical platonism vs Objectivism? I’ll bet it would be pretty close, so you might try a slightly humbler stance. — Joshs
Metaphysics is not the ground and condition of physics, nor physics the ground and condition for metaphysics. — Cornwell1
you haven't addressed the topic and have instead waisted our time on an anti-scientific, metaphysical belief that we both know isn't true. As you have addmitted. As it happens you've also pointed out that it is a metaphysical domain, instead of a scientific one, which was literally my point the entire time — Garrett Travers
Let’s see if we can clarify something. Metaphysical beliefs are commitments that guide scientists in their larger understanding of their subject matter, but that doesn’t mean that it directly affects how they interpret empirical — Joshs
The fact that these are pre-suppositions doesn’t make them anti-scientific, it makes them conditions of possibility of science. — Joshs
Objectivism’s
view of science is informed by its own set of metaphysical assumptions. — Joshs
Especially when all you're doing is repeating a tired and defeated defense of a pseudoscientific concept that you don't even believe in. I'm pretty sure the only reason he's been here is to derail the discussion and nothing more. — Garrett Travers
I'm only saying all this because you're fairly new and I didn't know if you knew the mighty power of the OP. — T Clark
Actually, I didn't. I was willing to entertain the debate until it came to the point where he confessed he didn't actually believe in this nonsense, and then continued to argue for it. — Garrett Travers
I think you are confused between Epistemology of Ethics, Math, Science and their respective ontological natures! As all these are different areas of inquiry using different methods to gain knowledge and standards according to which validity of their knowledge is judged! — empleat
As you know there are 3 areas of ethics:
1. Meta-ethics
2. Normative ethics
3. Applied ethics
It is not clean of which area Ethics you speak of, yet the very distinction matters! — empleat
Ethics are emergent from people arguing with each other and then they are made into laws... So they exist outside of an individuals and their (moral systems)! As an individual can't poses of Ethics! Yet Ethics are emergent property of individual moral systems contending with each other! — empleat
For instance, if we say Ethics are subjective. One could claim, if we don't know every possible permutation and even then: we can know only what our perception presents us! Therefore we cannot refute idea of absolute ethics! So to claim ultimately ethics are subjective from our very own subjective experiences would be logical fallacy! We would say something like: under assumption of materialism - Ethics are subjective... — empleat
But at the same time, even if there were objective Ethics. We only get their subjective perceptions in our minds. Even if there were such a thing and it were discovered eventually: we still would have to agree upon it! Lets say: we find some underlying principle in nature to be ultimate Ethic! Unless people come together or agree on it, it would still mean nothing!!! As no one would abide by that system! — empleat
Science cannot give us answers on when it is right to defend your property, abortion etc. As it is based on objective facts, which themselves are based inevitably on some assumptions! — empleat
I wouldn't necessarily say they are disoriented, or at worst misaligned entirely! But we are affected by our own perception and inherent biases for sure! As your own perception is already distorted, by which frame of reference you are considering ethics to be distorted? — empleat
E.g. people tend to prefer individuals from their group on trolley problem, or it would perhaps seem that our pre-existing biases lean us towards utilitarianism on a trolley problem, or people which are hungry judge crimes more harsly... — empleat
Which begs the question (if it is improper mode of viewing): what would be a proper mode? Can you state what and why is improper on viewing modes of Ethics according to you? — empleat
Hope this makes sense (I have low vIQ)!!! BTW I Am also a moral nihilist, relativist and non cognitivist! Even ultimately I can't prove it! — empleat
Lol finally someone who can talk facts without crying when first disagreement occurs :)So, no I'm not confused at all, however I do appreciate the post. Thanks for stopping by. Let's tackle this: — Garrett Travers
That makes sense to go to a source! Which is not even currently possible to study, so that's tough to tackle right now! Maybe when QM advances to explain the brain, but till :(I am not remarking on their ontological nature, I'm actually remarking on how they emerge from humans, — Garrett Travers
Are you sure about that, because I have no idea!!!the cognitive process by which we formulate methods within each domain is the same, and happens to be governed by the same structure of the brain predominantly. — Garrett Travers
What do you mean by individual realm (I Am very bad in language), that Ethics must exist in each individual?So, this is way too delimited in scope to encompass ethics. Ethics deals in the non-legal realm first and foremost, and as such the individual realm primarily. They only existd outside of the human as independently observable behavior of said human(s) who embody the morality of a given ethical framework. — Garrett Travers
Why it makes no sense to ask such questions? They guide our whole lives and law etc. I mean if we had nothing right now - civilization as we know it wouldn't be possible! It doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to explore every possibility! I would say: it doesn't make sense to make absolute statements about Ethics!Yes, that is my point exactly, such questions of objectivity or subjectivity are not applicable to ethics, yet everyone asks the same fallacious questions ad nauseum. Ethics is a theoretical, conceptual framework developed by humans to help them navigate the domain of proper behavior, both publicly and privately. It makes no sense to ask such questions of such a thing. — Garrett Travers
But you assume that there is such a thing that objective Ethics independent of subjective mind of an observer?The distortion isn't ethics. The distortion is the perception of ethics of the individuals asking the fallacious questions that aren't appropriate to ethics, or any other conceptual framework usde for assessing phenomena. — Garrett Travers
Yeah I know it is a through experiment. I mentioned it as example: that people decide at the end based on their emotions!Sure, I can accept this. But, this is not clearly a result of rational assessment, but an emotional assessment — Garrett Travers
A proper mode of viewing ethics is in terms of what it is in function, source, application, reliability, and comparison with similar practices. Which is what I propose. — Garrett Travers
Didn't you just say that it is distorted to view Ethics are objective and so on... :D ? I don't understand!Oooo, I haven't actually ever met one. Are you prepared to defend such a position to a trained ethicist that holds that ethics provides numerous objective frameworks by which to assess moral behavior? If so, let's do this, eh? — Garrett Travers
What is truth? You are asking hardest question ever proposed: https://bigthink.com/thinking/hardest-question-world-what-truth/I posit this to you my friends, in the hopes of a peaceful discussion on the subject, that the questions most commonly associated with the topic of ethics, i.e. objectivity, subjectivity, etc., are distractions that keep us from understanding the truth. — Garrett Travers
Maybe when QM advances to explain the brain, but till :( — empleat
What do you mean by individual realm (I Am very bad in language), that Ethics must exist in each individual? — empleat
Ethics exists outside of me, even if I die, or 1000 people die, they will still exist as an immaterial information i.e. as Ethical system in all other people. So from my perspective Ethics are external to me. I can only have morals, although I Am part of that Ethical system as well. But more people than 1 must exist for Ethics to exist! — empleat
Why it makes no sense to ask such questions? They guide our whole lives and law etc. I mean if we had nothing right now - civilization as we know it wouldn't be possible! It doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to explore every possibility! I would say: it doesn't make sense to make absolute statements about Ethics! — empleat
it doesn't make any sense in 99.9% of cases under any framework: that it would be objectively better to save 5 people, than 1! That 1 person wouldn't care, even if million of other people died... Why would he had to suffer so terribly in that case? He can't feel their pain, only indirectly! Only in case his pain from other 5 people dying would exceed his pain from dying, then that would make sense... — empleat
we could say 5 people have more value for survival of a society (within a context)! So therefore it is ethical to save 5! — empleat
Isn't precisely asking, rising and exploring these questions what gave emergence to Ethics? — empleat
As Ethics are observer dependent, if you don't like current Ethics, but went to find their origin into their brain. Wouldn't they be still subjective distortions? — empleat
Or do you like expect they could be guided by some underlying principles in nature or what? — empleat
claim that you should sacrifice yourself for 5 people wouldn't be still morally objective! — empleat
are always dependent on a context therefore - relative! And on people enacting them therefore - subjective! — empleat
I Am trying to show dichotomy between Ethics concerning how we ought to act against individual vs masses! — empleat
But you assume that there is such a thing that objective Ethics independent of subjective mind of an observer? — empleat
how do you define what is right and wrong in the first place??? — empleat
And that there is a way to rationally, logically to determine it! — empleat
Well if you want to study origin of Ethics in a brain. How they come to be! Wouldn't you still need eventually to end up with some system of Ethics? — empleat
Consider this China wants to get ahead so they haste industrial revolution, but in US they had different Ethics. It doesn't make sense to compare similar practices in these 2 countries and expect to find some underlying principle! Because they are situational!
Besides: your proposition seems way too generic! And isn't this what Ethics are exactly trying to accomplish - as what you said?! — empleat
I think today most logical people lean towards Ethical Relativism, or Moral Nihilism and Non Cognitivism. Because these are only things which makes sense, as sad as it sounds! — empleat
1. relative:
Because Ethics different per culture! Each culture has different environment and unique set of challenges! And different Ethics per situation allow it to survive the best! It is just what group of individuals enforced: what they think collectively is the best (based on their individual emotions)... — empleat
2. subjective:
There is no underlying Ethical principle, Philosophers are heavily split on Ethical positions. And no one discovered yet one upon which all would agree! — empleat
There is no right/wrong in nature: these are human made concepts to survive! We only given labels based on what feels good/bad emotionally to moral statements... As positive emotion is something which is good for you, whereas negative the opposite! What difference it makes, if I save 100 children from fire, or become serial murderer? Difference in eyes of society? Sure! Difference in my survival? Sure! But in terms of universe, what does it actually matter? Everything just is... That is not to say we should all become Moral Nihilist, as you need morals for survival still... — empleat
What is truth? You are asking hardest question ever proposed — empleat
Are you 100% sure about that, what about microtubules? My understanding is that it is not currently clear: whether or not QM plays role in a human brain!Quantum Mechanics tells us nothing of the nature of macroscopic material interactions, let alone ones that govern a biological entity with complex thinking like humans. — Garrett Travers
I would disagree. Morals yes! But Ethics are emergent based on interaction of each individual in a group! I would include multiple of peoples in definition of Ethics!Meaning, ethics is a subjective methodology devised by the individual human mind, — Garrett Travers
Yeah I got this part. Even it doesn't look so, I Am confused in use of language mainly!Right, which is specifically what I wanted to highlight with this forum, that people are stuck in that idea of thinking ethics externally, or divinely disseminated. — Garrett Travers
I meant it that they have to exist in other people as well for Ethics to exist! As individual can posses only of morals! And then they have top-down causation on a society! I can't poses of Ethics alone, yet my moral standards are informed by Ethics which are coming from other people (therefore external to me). And I agree - that Ethics are embodied (in the real world) only as behaviors.No, ethics only exist in the world insomuchas they are embodied as behaviors. — Garrett Travers
Meaning, no ethics in that case. But, again, you're falling into the "moral objectivity" trap again — Garrett Travers
I think what I was trying to say, that you won't learn probably much from origin of Ethics in brains! Without taking into context situations etc. Even if that behavior would be objective once studies by a science, I don't think we still could infer objective morals facts!Meaning, no ethics in that case. But, again, you're falling into the "moral objectivity" trap again. — Garrett Travers
As you define right/wrong that is basically moral nihilism! Whatever works for any given goal established by society best is right/wrong... That being survival in general!I listed the standards above, but there are many more. You standardized behaviors and you vet them for the qualities I listed. That's how you choose what is right and wrong. Just as the behaviors of observation in science were vetted for their quality control, in an attempt to produce the optimal results within that domain. — Garrett Travers
Yeah that is my point - moral nihilism! Ethics are whatever group of people enforced to suit them the best! What is good for one person, doesn't have to be good for anyone. That's why I have problem defining objectively good! It could lead to reverence of some perverse Ethical system, as to be objectively good! At the end right/wrong is whatever we as a society come to terms with!Yes, but if you're studying such a history, you'll be looking at a far more primordial view of ethics. Such as behavior predicated on food procurement, procreation, sleep, and tribal harmony, all in the pursuit of continuing life, which happens to be the fundamental code of nature that you can't break, generally speaking. — Garrett Travers
Note: I Am not trying to be a contrarian, nor do I think I know better! “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” - Plato. Just warning, as it could sound like that! I usually get into problems with people, because of that... It is hard to give one answer, as I give different modalities to my statements and to bridge like postulates, hypotheses, theorizes etc. Because if I feel something intuitively very strongly, yet I cannot prove it, it makes me crazy and I have so low verbal intelligence, I can't express it!!!I would in fact argue such a thing isn't possible, unless one values their emotions above logic, in which case they will base their ethics on emotion. — Garrett Travers
While I agree, I would be perhaps Effective Altruist. But I Am depressed that there is no right/wrong. Everything is neutral!Yes, that is correct, moral codes must be established through rational, logical, objectively standardized assessment. — Garrett Travers
Jesus? What??? LMAOOOOO :)You might think of people who get "saved" and then change their behavior as a result of said value shift. This happens with logic and rationality, if elevated as a value by an individual, just as it does with Jesus. — Garrett Travers
Yes that's what I Am exactly talking about! People assimilate their values based how they feel about them, not based on their rational deliberations! Why are there so many racist/extremist people? People don't think rationally, they rationalize their believes! Especially when it comes to morals, people form their morals based on what they believe is good. E.g. instilled values from parents etc. We feel emotions based on gathered information in life. Your background is absolutely gonna affect your moral judgements and forming of moral standards! They are not excerpt from emotions!!!You might also remember that emotion can be used to empower the integration of values such as logic and rationality — Garrett Travers
Then didn't you just agree, that it is on emotions whether or not you integrate such values? Based how you feel about them? Or what to think about them?You might also remember that emotion can be used to empower the integration of values such as logic and rationality, which the brain is doing on it's own anyway as a part of its nature. — Garrett Travers
Yeah but limbic system has system for evaluating information of its own, it is not entirely logical like neocortex! Emotions are our bodily feedback loops whether physical or psychological, based on information we gather!And then too are the chemicals objective that dictate the function of the objective brain that gives rise to emotion that informs objective behavior, that is then processed by the prefrontal cortex of the objective brain, after which logical assessment can be made to inform even more objective behaviors. Kind of cool, huh? — Garrett Travers
Yeah, I absolutely agree with that! Yes so cool weeeeeeeeeeeeee xDDBut, again, ethics is relative to the individual ethical theorist, but so is all theorization. That doesn't mean that objective standards for theorization can't be agreed upon, or that those objective standards can't be translated to objective behavior in a physical body. And, furthermore, if the body is a physical, objective entity, then too is the brain objective that governs the body. And then too are the chemicals objective that dictate the function of the objective brain that gives rise to emotion that informs objective behavior, that is then processed by the prefrontal cortex of the objective brain, after which logical assessment can be made to inform even more objective behaviors. Kind of cool, huh? — Garrett Travers
Yeah, but you are assuming already we have all the same standards, or we can agree on them!If you save a hundred children you have prolonged life that had no intention of ending, while also increasing the overall happiness of all those involved exponentially. If you become a serial murder you perform life-ending acts on behalf of those that did not desire it, thereby decreasing the overall happiness of all those involved. One is logically consistent, the other isn't. There's a couple standard. — Garrett Travers
Wait what? While hazily think I understand what you are saying and it makes logically sense...as to claim there is no right/wrong is to make the claim that you are right about the universe having a right/wrong - how can that be if there's no right/wrong?- that's logically inconsistent and self-contradictory. — Garrett Travers
Yeah but what does it matter if I increase overall happiness? You can say for survival of a race. I ask again why? You can say to make myself happen, because I don't want other people to see suffer. But again I may ask why AD Infinitum!If you save a hundred children you have prolonged life that had no intention of ending, while also increasing the overall happiness of all those involved exponentially. If you become a serial murder you perform life-ending acts on behalf of those that did not desire it, thereby decreasing the overall happiness of all those involved. One is logically consistent, the other isn't. There's a couple standard. — Garrett Travers
Yeah I can see how this can be confusing, I have my reasons.To claim that nothing matters in the universe is to make a fact value judgement about it that you are going to use to inform your actions, thereby imbuing your objective behavior with meaning, as it is motivated by a perceived fact. Furthermore, to make the claim nothing matters in the universe and no ethics, and then to proceed to a debate about ethics and meaning is to place value IN the concept of no-meaning, thereby self-detonating nihilism with meaning imparted to it from that very same nihilist claiming the universe has no meaning and no ethics — Garrett Travers
Yeah but how do you determine what is a reality, if everything is filtered though your brain and what about noumenal things? What if I say there is a red carpet and it is my truth and you hear blue and see blue and it is your truth? Which is which?An innate element of reality that can be independently verified, falsified, and related to by other things of its nature, or within its sphere of proximal influence. This definition combines both correspondence theory and coherence theory of truth into one easily digestable definition — Garrett Travers
I had the same idea :DFYI, if we continue this insanely long conversation, I say we move from here to messenger and tackle these one at a time, or we simply tackle them here one at a time henceforth. So, for next post, just pick on thing you want clarity on and I will assess it, and I do the same for you. Sound good? — Garrett Travers
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.