A question for everyone

[The happy Objectivist]

And what else? I suppose you want sex too?

And what else? I suppose you want sex too?

No, but thank you. I have all the sex I want. The thing I was looking for was the fact that our actions affect us in either a negative way or a positive way. I suppose that the word expendable implies this and that's why I said you were very close. But this exercise is about making explicit what is implicit and so that's why I said that you were only close. I'm not getting down on you. You did very well. This is a method of thinking that is completely foreign to most people. It was to me for a very long time. learning about it was one of the greatest discoveries in my life.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Necessary for what?

For cognition. Concepts are how we identify and integrate facts. A fact that needs to be identified and integrated gives rise for the need of a concept.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So several people have gotten the first reduction. Our actions have negative or positive effects on our lives and this fact is self-evident. Now we need to do another reduction. Why do some actions affect us negatively and some positively? What is it about us that makes this so? The answer is simple and it consists of four words to give you a hint.

 

[durangodawood]

For cognition. Concepts are how we identify and integrate facts. A fact that needs to be identified and integrated gives rise for the need of a concept.

So to put it together:

"I want to know what facts are observable by means of perception that make the concept morally right and wrong necessary for cognition."

Sorry, Im still not getting the gist of your inquiry.

 

[partinobodycular]

But back to morality, it fails when left to nature to create.

How so?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

So to put it together:

"I want to know what facts are observable by means of perception that make the concept morally right and wrong necessary for cognition."

Sorry, Im still not getting the gist of your inquiry.

It's an exercise in thinking in terms of essentials. An example would be: The fact that marriage exists gives rise to the need for the concept "bachelor".

Some fact, some one basic fact, gives rise to the need for the concept of morality. I want to discover to what extent people on this forum utilize this method of thinking, just because I'm curious. We've got the start of the answer much quicker than I thought would happen: our actions affect our lives either negatively or positively. Now we need to understand why this is because we are not at the essential fact yet.

I want to see if anyone here can take this all the way down to an axiom. By axiom, I mean a basic fact that can't be broken down or analyzed further. Some people call these brute facts.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yes, this is precisely what I'm looking for. I think you've given the answer. The keywords you used were consequences and suffering. If I were to sum up what you say into a principle it would be that our actions affect not only our lives but others' lives either in a negative way or a positive way. Is this fact self-evident? Yes, I think it is. We experience this fact directly even before we have the concepts "good" and "bad". You have made the first reduction But there is still more to do. What fact about our lives gives rise to the concept that some things affect us negatively and some things affect us positively? We need to go through two more rounds of reduction, at least, to get to the most fundamental fact that gives rise to the need for a concept of morality.

Folks, this is not a gotcha kind of question. I'm not asking these questions to ridicule or make fun of you or trip you up. This is an exercise in a certain method of thinking, one of reducing an idea to axioms, i.e., self-evident facts that are irreducible, meaning they can't be broken down into more fundamental ideas. I'm asking this question for my own curiosity about how people on this forum think. The method goes by several names. Elon Musk calls it thinking in first principles. I call it thinking in terms of essentials. It's the most powerful tool I've come across in understanding reality.

Self preservation would be the flesh driven side of your equation.

 

[partinobodycular]

Self preservation would be the flesh driven side of your equation.

If it's self driven then it's not morality, it's simply human self preservation. If it's driven by an internal concept of right and wrong then it's simply the same evolutionary trait that many social animals display. But nowhere in this process is there a need for God, except in the human need to explain what it doesn't understand.

 

[Bradskii]

It's an exercise in thinking in terms of essentials. Some fact, some one basic fact, gives rise to the need for the concept of morality. I want to discover to what extent people on this forum utilize this method of thinking, just because I'm curious. We've got the start of the answer much quicker than I thought would happen: our actions affect our lives either negatively or positively. Now we need to understand why this is because we are not at the essential fact yet.

I would have thought that was self evident. Morality has emerged to codify that which is good - or beneficial to be more specific. So don't steal someones food and they probably won't steal yours (there's a need for some type of social contract here but that emerges automatically). But then you need empathy to take it a step further (I don't like my food being stolen therefore she's not going to like it either) and come up with the golden rule.

But empathy is a form of perception and you said you didn't want that. But as far as I can see, you can't get to where you need to be without it.

 

[PloverWing]

Hi Ploverwing, thank you for answering. Intuition is not perception though and you are using the concept "morally right" and "morally wrong" and I want to know what facts are observable by means of perception that make the concept morally right and wrong necessary.

"Perception" is an interesting concept. It is an inner mental state that (if all goes well) corresponds to something that is real or true. Many perceptions come through our senses of sight, sound, touch, and so on. I suggest, however, that some perceptions do not come through our physical senses. I perceive, for example, that this theorem follows from those premises because the proof follows particular rules of inference that we have agreed on. I might see the representation of the proof by reading marks on paper with my eyes, but I'm perceiving something more than marks on paper. Some perceptions -- like the validity of a proof -- are intangible, mental perceptions. They are, nevertheless, perceptions worth taking into account. I believe that the perception of "oughtness" falls into this category.

Yes, this is precisely what I'm looking for. I think you've given the answer. The keywords you used were consequences and suffering. If I were to sum up what you say into a principle it would be that our actions affect not only our lives but others' lives either in a negative way or a positive way. Is this fact self-evident? Yes, I think it is. We experience this fact directly even before we have the concepts "good" and "bad". You have made the first reduction But there is still more to do. What fact about our lives gives rise to the concept that some things affect us negatively and some things affect us positively? We need to go through two more rounds of reduction, at least, to get to the most fundamental fact that gives rise to the need for a concept of morality.

Folks, this is not a gotcha kind of question. I'm not asking these questions to ridicule or make fun of you or trip you up. This is an exercise in a certain method of thinking, one of reducing an idea to axioms, i.e., self-evident facts that are irreducible, meaning they can't be broken down into more fundamental ideas. I'm asking this question for my own curiosity about how people on this forum think. The method goes by several names. Elon Musk calls it thinking in first principles. I call it thinking in terms of essentials. It's the most powerful tool I've come across in understanding reality.

You may be underestimating the role of intuition in constructing axioms. Often, the axioms of a formal system rest on intuition; they are assertions that seem so obviously correct that we agree that they make good starting points for our reasoning. (I'm thinking of efforts like Peano's axioms for arithmetic and Euclid's axioms for geometry.) If the axioms were derived from some other assertions, then it would be better to make those other assertions our axioms.

I don't think "oughtness" is reducible to any other category. We can come up with theories like Utilitarianism and whatnot for discerning which actions are right and wrong, but I see "ought" as its own irreducible category.

 

[PloverWing]

So several people have gotten the first reduction. Our actions have negative or positive effects on our lives and this fact is self-evident. Now we need to do another reduction. Why do some actions affect us negatively and some positively? What is it about us that makes this so? The answer is simple and it consists of four words to give you a hint.

Phrased this way, the conversation seems less like a discussion and more like Twenty Questions. If you've devised your own theory of ethics, would you like to just give us your Magic Four Words?

 

[partinobodycular]

So don't steal someones food and they probably won't steal yours (there's a need for some type of social contract here but that emerges automatically).

Okay, except that that's a purely rational undertaking, and I would argue that many animals have the exact same concept of morality without having to rationalize it's underlying basis. I think that behaving morally is the product of the process of evolving from acting instinctively, to acting intuitively. Intuition being the intermediate step between instinctive behavior and reasoned behavior.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I would have thought that was self evident. Morality has emerged to codify that which is good - or beneficial to be more specific. So don't steal someones food and they probably won't steal yours (there's a need for some type of social contract here but that emerges automatically). But then you need empathy to take it a step further (I don't like my food being stolen therefore she's not going to like it either) and come up with the golden rule.

But empathy is a form of perception and you said you didn't want that. But as far as I can see, you can't get to where you need to be without it.

The fact I'm looking for is much more fundamental than the fact that we have empathy. I think we have empathy because we recongize that certain things are painful or harmful and we're able to put ourselves into the context of another person's situation and know some of what they must be going through. I think we have empathy stems from the fact that we know certain things are harmful and certain things are helpful. but why is that. That's the next step of reduction to getting to the basic idea that makes the concept of morality necessary.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, except that that's a purely rational undertaking, and I would argue that many animals have the exact same concept of morality without having to rationalize it's underlying basis. I think that behaving morally is the product of the process of evolving from acting instinctively, to acting intuitively. Intuition being the intermediate step between instinctive behavior and reasoned behavior.

I'll agree. Except I wouldn't call it morality when it's just based on instinct. Or even intuition. My grandkid's dog doesn't know it's wrong to chew my shoe (as he was a few minutes ago). He just doesn't like getting a tap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper when he does. He's not thinking 'ah, this must be wrong'. He's thinking 'if I do this I get shouted at and hit with a newspaper - therefore I won't do it'. He doesn't know why I don't want him doing it.

If he did understand why then we're on the first step towards morality. But he'd need empathy to reach a point where he'd think 'I shouldn't do this because if he did something similar to me then I wouldn't like it either'.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Phrased this way, the conversation seems less like a discussion and more like Twenty Questions. If you've devised your own theory of ethics, would you like to just give us your Magic Four Words?

Because that would defeat my purpose. I want to see to what extent people on this forum can think in terms of essentials. I happen to think this is one of the most powerful tools for understanding things in the world. You may disagree.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The fact I'm looking for is much more fundamental than the fact that we have empathy. I think we have empathy because we recongize that certain things are painful or harmful and we're able to put ourselves into the context of another person's situation and know some of what they must be going through. I think we have empathy stems from the fact that we know certain things are harmful and certain things are helpful. but why is that. That's the next step of reduction to getting to the basic idea that makes the concept of morality necessary. Asking why questions is essential to this method.

 

[Bradskii]

I think we have empathy stems from the fact that we know certain things are harmful and certain things are helpful.

I think the question should be taken back a step and asked 'why is it wrong?' And then the answer would be 'because it's harmful'. And the answer to that will entirely depend on the circumstance. Because I'll go hungry. Because I'll have to make another. Because it's painful. Because I'll be dead...

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I would have thought that was self evident. Morality has emerged to codify that which is good - or beneficial to be more specific. So don't steal someones food and they probably won't steal yours (there's a need for some type of social contract here but that emerges automatically). But then you need empathy to take it a step further (I don't like my food being stolen therefore she's not going to like it either) and come up with the golden rule.

But empathy is a form of perception and you said you didn't want that. But as far as I can see, you can't get to where you need to be without it.

Yes morality arises from the recognition that some actions and choices are beneficial. I do want some fact that is perceptually self-evident. Perception is the beginning of knowledge. By perception I mean direct awareness of things, not an inference.
We've gotten the answer to the first why question but now we need to ask why some actions are beneficial and some not. There is a four-word reason why this is. When we get that answer we'll be close to the fundamental fact. So why are some things good for us and some things bad? After this, there is one more why question to ask after that to get to the axiomatic level of knowledge. We can't go any further than that.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think the question should be taken back a step and asked 'why is it wrong?' And then the answer would be 'because it's harmful'. And the answer to that will entirely depend on the circumstance. Because I'll go hungry. Because I'll have to make another. Because it's painful. Because I'll be dead...

Right and there's a fact that makes the concept of harmful and beneficial necessary. What is that fact. It's something to do with our nature. What part of our nature makes things good for us or bad. It starts with a C.

 

[Bradskii]

Right and there's a fact that makes the concept of harmful and beneficial necessary. What is that fact. It's something to do with our nature. What part of our nature makes things good for us or bad. It starts with a C.

This isn't eye-spy-with-my-little-eye. If you think you know then cut out the guessing games and say so. In the meantime, I'll state (again) it's what causes harm. And I gave some examples. Conscience (I'll assume that's what you were referring to) comes later. When we know it's wrong, other people know it's wrong but we do it anyway. And they find out. Conscience is no more than the desire not to be discovered doing wrong. We're social animals. We want social approbation. We don't like being exluded (don't hang around with him, he never buys his own round).

Hence shame (you never buy a round!) and pride (I always buy a round) and guilt (I never bought a round).