A question for everyone

[partinobodycular]

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'.

Hmmmm...this certainly is food for thought. What's the relationship/difference between reasoned behavior, conditioned behavior, intuitive behavior, and instinctive behavior.

Not sure, I'll have to ponder it for a while.

 

[partinobodycular]

Conscience (I'll assume that's what you were referring to) comes later.

I would agree that conscience is the result of conditioning, yet I wouldn't totally dismiss the existence of intuition, but what then is the difference between conditioning and intuition?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

"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.

By perception I mean direct awareness of things by the senses. I don't mean someone's perspective or take on things. Oughtness is a separate question which is a great question but not pertinent to this discussion. I'll give an example. What fact gives rise to the need for the concept "bachelor"? The fact that some men are married and some are not gives rise to the need for the concept bachelor, to identify and distinguish those men who are not married from those that are. If there were no such fact as marriage there'd be no need for the concept "bachelor". What gives rise to the need for the concept male? The fact that we have two genders. What gives rise to the need for the concept of poison? The fact that some things that we might eat can harm us.

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.

Again "oughtness is a separate issue. The concept axiom as I am using it is defined as a basic, perceptually self-evident fact, conceptually irreducible and fundamental. I don't think intuition has any role to play in forming an axiomatic concept. They are simply implicit in all knowledge. They are inescapable and their truth is directly observable and incontestable. I'm talking about a philosophical axiom not an axiom in the colloquial sense. That's what I want to reduce the idea of morality down to. Why is it that some things are good for us and some are not? What fact about us makes this so. I think you're overthinking this. Think basic principles here. There's one more reduction to do in order to get to the level of an axiom after we answer why it is that some things are good for us and some bad. After that last reduction, we will be able to go back up the chain to reach the concept of morality and then we can discuss "oughtness" if you want because that is a separate question. We can do a reduction on that concept next.

 

[partinobodycular]

Why is it that some things are good for us and some not. What fact about us makes this so. I think you're overthinking this. Think basic principles here.

I don't think that there is such a thing as a fundamental principle as to why things are good or bad for us beyond either a rational one, a philosophical one, or an evolutionary one. But to try to assign a priority to any one of them seems totally arbitrary. But perhaps I don't understand the question.

 

[Bradskii]

I would agree that conscience is the result of conditioning, yet I wouldn't totally dismiss the existence of intuition, but what then is the difference between conditioning and intuition?

I'd say that intuition is a subconscious automated response to the current situation based on past experience (something 'feels' wrong) and conditioning is the result of repetetive experience.

 

[SkyWriting]

How so?

People get annoyed and kill each other.

Of six people recently killed in “execution style” shootings in a Milwaukee home, three were reportedly set to testify in an upcoming murder trial, according to police.The bodies were found on Sunday afternoon.According to police, officers were called to perform a wellness check on the house. When they entered, they found the bodies of Caleb Jordan, 23; Javoni Liddell, 31; Charles Hardy, 42; Donald Smith, 43; Donta Williams, 44; and Michelle Williams, 49.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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).

If I give you my answers, then the discussion will be everyone trying to debunk my answers. You don't have to participate. You don't have to agree with me. I'll say that you are going in the wrong direction here talking about conscience and oughtness and pride and shame. You need to go in the other direction to more fundamental ideas. I'm trying to get to the root fact here. I just want to know what fact about us makes some things good for us and some bad. Use my example of the concept bachelor and answer that way. The fact that some men are married and some not gives rise to the need for the concept "bachelor". The fact that our lives are...fill in the blank... means that some things are good for us and some bad.

 

[partinobodycular]

People get annoyed and kill each other.

And for some reason you think that that nullifies the influence of evolution on morality?

Again...how so?

 

[partinobodycular]

The fact that our lives are...fill in the blank... means that some things are good for us and some bad.

Off the top of my head I've got nothing.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I don't think that there is such a thing as a fundamental principle as to why things are good or bad for us beyond either a rational one, a philosophical one, or an evolutionary one. But to try to assign a priority to any one of them seems totally arbitrary. But perhaps I don't understand the question.

It's a philosophical one that I want. Again this is an exercise in reducing an idea to its essential principles. We have one step of reduction done. We've identified the fact that some things are good for us and some bad. Now we need to know why. Because our lives are.....one word.

 

[partinobodycular]

We've identified the fact that some things are good for us and some bad.

Personally, I'm not granting you that one just yet. We may agree in principle that some things are good or bad for us, but does that then rise to the level of being a fact beyond our own subjective opinions? Ehhhhh

Now we need to know why. Because our lives are.....one word.

Still nothing.

 

[honestal]

This is a self-evident fact but it's not the most fundamental fact. We're not there yet but we've made a good start. So what is it about us that makes some actions good for us and some bad?

Well... I'm glad you thought my answer wasn't too bad.

And again, I'm not quite sure I perfectly understand you... but I'll try again. (But this time I'll try a different approach. )

Is there "truth?" Or is "truth" whatever one perceives in their mind to be truth?

I believe the second (truth is whatever one perceives it to be) is extremely dangerous and prone to disastrous outcomes. I'll give two examples--the first most likely no one will disagree with. The second, though just as correct, sadly, many will disagree with.

#1--I don't care what one believes to be truth, if one jumps off the empire state building it is not going to go well for them. (Some would call it the law of gravity.)

#2 (and I'm using this to address what to me is an extremely sad reality)--If you go along with the idea that little ten-year old Johnny is really little ten year old Jenny, and allow him to, or encourage him to, cut off his penis and somehow get a vagina , it will not make little ten year-old Johnny little ten-year old Jenny. It will only make him a mutilated ten-year old Johnny. And what makes it infinitely worse, it's not like cutting off you hair--that will grow back. (We know a 60 year old Johnny who did that very thing. To the public he is now Jenny. Privately, he told my wife and I that it was the worst thing he ever did. )

Back to the point: There is truth!!! (At least in many aspects of life.)

Which brings me to the big question(s): What is truth? Where is it to be found? And, what is the source of it? (If there is a source.)

Got to run.

Fundamental truth #1--SELFISHNESS IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

("Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." {1 Thessalonians 5:21}

 

[Bradskii]

If I give you my answers, then the discussion will be everyone trying to debunk my answers. You don't have to participate. You don't have to agree with me. I'll say that you are going in the wrong direction here talking about conscience and oughtness and pride and shame. You need to go in the other direction to more fundamental ideas. I'm trying to get to the root fact here. I just want to know what fact about us makes some things good for us and some bad. Use my example of the concept bachelor and answer that way. The fact that some men are married and some not gives rise to the need for the concept "bachelor". The fact that our lives are...fill in the blank... means that some things are good for us and some bad.

I don't see a need for anything to fill in the blank. You can just say 'The fact that are lives are, means...' Meaning that the very fact that we exist means that some things are going to be bad (being injured) and some good (being safe). And that applies to all living things. Nothing that you fill in the blank with will change that.

Look at it this way: We are evolved beings. So if you fill in the blank with something that applies to us as Homos sapiens then did it still apply back when we could be described as something other than Homo sapien? Did this blank-filling 'concept' evolve with us?

If it did then it's applicable to life in general and not just to us. If it didn't then when did this something appear?

 

[Leaf473]

No, I think we do definitely need a concept of morality. I think it's crucial to human life. But why is it crucial? What facts makes it crucial?

It's crucial to human life as in without it we die? Or without it we live but can't be happy?
Something else?

 

[partinobodycular]

If you go along with the idea that little ten-year old Johnny is really little ten year old Jenny, and allow him to, or encourage him to, cut off his penis and somehow get a vagina , it will not make little ten year-old Johnny little ten-year old Jenny. It will only make him a mutilated ten-year old Johnny.

Sorry. I'm not buying this argument. I refuse to define someone else's life for them. I don't know what this makes Johnny/Jenny but I'm far more concerned with Johnny/Jenny's character than I am with their sexual categorization. Sexual categorization may be a big thing to you, but it ain't nothing to me.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Pain, suffering, greed, slothfulness, coveting etc

The sin nature of man, makes a code of moral ethics necessary.

 

[partinobodycular]

The sin nature of man, makes a code of moral ethics necessary.

But the sin nature of man doesn't make morality necessary in and of itself, evolution does that by making moral behavior a beneficial survival trait.

 

[PloverWing]

Oughtness is a separate question which is a great question but not pertinent to this discussion.

I thought you were asking us to define "oughtness" in terms of some other concept. I gather that's not what you intended to discuss after all.

Again "oughtness is a separate issue. The concept axiom as I am using it is defined as a basic, perceptually self-evident fact, conceptually irreducible and fundamental. I don't think intuition has any role to play in forming an axiomatic concept. They are simply implicit in all knowledge. They are inescapable and their truth is directly observable and incontestable. I'm talking about a philosophical axiom not an axiom in the colloquial sense.

I'm talking about "axiom" in the sense that it's used in formal logic and mathematics. I don't know what the colloquial sense of the word is.

If I give you my answers, then the discussion will be everyone trying to debunk my answers. You don't have to participate. You don't have to agree with me. I'll say that you are going in the wrong direction here talking about conscience and oughtness and pride and shame. You need to go in the other direction to more fundamental ideas.

I feel like we've moved from "Let's discuss philosophy" to "Guess what the answer is" to "Guess what the question is", so I'll bow out for a while. I yield the floor to @Bradskii . Maybe I'll buy the next round.

 

[Tolworth John]

why do we need such a concept in the first place?

Without a source for morality there are no moral standards, only peoples opinions.

 

[Bradskii]

Without a source for morality there are no moral standards, only peoples opinions.

We do have a source. It's the concept of 'do no harm'. But your opinion on what harm actually constitutes might well differ from mine. That's applicable whatever the source.