Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All ethical directives are not true by default because they're based on values. I suppose we could show that there are things which are also false involved, why not?I'm just jumping into the middle of your convo because I want to address is/ ought... You brought it up in thread I started and I never took the time to address it. If you don't mind, I'd like to do that now.
When it comes to morality there must be some decision made of what to value which, I think we can agree, can never be derived from mere knowledge of facts about the world. But while it is true that moral directives cannot be derived from the bare facts of the external world, they are still based on those facts, and therein lies the key. From that, consider the following:
Any ethical directive based on a demonstrably false statement is wrong.
In other words, descriptive statements cannot confirm prescriptive statements but can disprove them. Ethical directives based on claims of fact that are not known to be false, but that lack sufficient evidentiary support, should be held in abeyance until that claim is either decisively confirmed or decisively refuted.
For example, any moral system that proposes unequal treatment of people based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender is wrong and should be discarded, based on scientific findings that all human beings are fundamentally the same at the genetic and cognitive levels.
Thoughts?
You have just used a 'should'If I can convince other people to like and dislike the same things I do, why shouldn't I?
You have missed my point then. Why do people who profess your system of morality of using "likes and dislikes" use language that has "shoulds and oughts" in it in the first place? Out of one side of their mouth, they profess there are no moral truths and everyone has their own views, "likes and dislikes" and out of the other when faced with real-life situations appeal to morality like it is real and make "truth" statements.Explain that to me without using any version of a "should" or "ought" statement. What tactics and manipulative techniques should I not use and why? Again, explain this without using any version of a "should" or "ought" statement.
I know this is impossible, that's the point. There is no "should"! You can only prescribe behavior in your system of morality, it can't be done with mine. But I can persuade people to feel differently about things, and they'll act in accordance with their feelings.
For one as Moral Orel says that you cannot use 'shoulds and oughts' with subjective morality because it is only about personal opinions or 'likes and dislikes' and I tend to agree. That's because using 'shoulds and oughts' is going beyond the 'likes and dislikes' or personal opinions of a subjective moral position.Why is that a problem?
Ugh! Then why do you keep telling me I should accept other people's viewpoints?!For one as Moral Orel says that you cannot use 'shoulds and oughts' with subjective morality because it is only about personal opinions or 'likes and dislikes' and I tend to agree.
I need to make them associate a lack of fear, or a feeling of comfort, with my security.
Mmm... I'm thinking that some premises are only proven inductively so they are only trying to prove a likelihood. Is that what you mean?
Eh. I don't know a ton about either of those. From my limited understanding of the concepts, I see QM as us discovering that GR is incomplete.
Okay, so we shouldn't necessarily act on gut instinct desire because we haven't thought about things like consequences we might not want? Okay. But we should act on desires that we've put thought into and weighed the pros and cons?
For starters, should we get what we don't deserve? What if I don't value the well-being of others; should I take what I can get away with?
It only seems like I said "he should get it" because we as a species feel that we ought to get what we want.
I never said they should. You said we should believe the truth and we should do what we want. Sometimes the truth is unfortunately bleak and I'd feel happier if I believed it was false. Sometimes you can't do both.
It's widespread too. Take a look at the news and how different it is depending on the political slant of the media organization promoting it. We don't need to talk about which side is right or wrong. The stories are reported in a manner that are mutually exclusive to each other and there are folks on both sides who sincerely believe what's being reported. It's possible that everyone is spreading falsehoods that people believe because they don't want the truth, but at a minimum one side is.
There are no universally held moral values. What we value is so malleable that there is no universal consistency. Some people learn to associate extreme pain with pleasure. Some people learn to associate extreme pleasure with suffering.
Dopamine isn't the only chemical we enjoy the sensation of experiencing, it's just the one most commonly associated with pleasure. Dopamine is released even as we eat. Some people lack the ability to experience pleasure altogether and it's difficult to get them to even eat food. Are you so sure that relaxing doesn't release chemicals that are pleasurable?
I don't know a ton about neuroscience, but I have an education in clinical psychology, and the extent of things that we can alter about what people associate with pleasure and suffering is absolutely bizarre.
Not really, I was granting that some thing should be desired and still seeing a gap.
There is. Put it in a syllogism. You need "I should believe things that are true" and "I should seek things that make me happy", respectively, to make a valid argument. I think those are assumed and are separate from what it means to desire things and believe things.
We do in fact seek what we desire, but we only feel we should because we feel that we're entitled to being happy.
If we can satisfy a desire, and after deliberation we find that we won't experience consequences that we don't desire, should we pursue that desire? Without exception?
I think we attain happiness by experiencing pleasure and avoiding suffering. Heck, avoiding suffering is pleasurable in itself as it will reinforce behavior just like receiving rewards. But I don't really see this distinction as being all that important.
I told Philo I wouldn't argue with him, so even in this conversation between you and I, I won't comment on any errors I may or may not have identified.
Oops! That one got lost in my alerts.
So each of the qualities you talked about before have their own individual reasons for being good? Okay. We don't need to agree on anything, you aren't making an argument, you're just explaining things to me. So you can just tell me what you consider justice to be and what's good about that. If you don't mind, I'd like to hear about at least two things like justice though, just to see if I can spot some overarching connection.
Are you bored with this conversation, Philo? I understand the large gaps between postings, we all have lives to lead outside of CF, but you also just skimmed that whole post and only addressed a tiny fraction of it. Those things together are causing me to believe you are losing interest in talking about this topic. Your posts are increasingly sounding like you're shrugging the conversation off. It's fine if you are.What do I consider 'justice' to be? I don't know what it is other than a generic sensibility that some people have in thinking that treatment among people should somehow be .... fair in an unfair world?
Actually I said "Subjective morality doesn't make moral truth statements beyond the person who makes them. How can a person with their personal view/opinion claim that what they are saying is a truth that should apply to everyone else?"That could be, but that's not the question you asked. You wanted to know how people justify condemning the moral views of others even though they do not support moral objectivity.
Even so this doesn't explain how moral truth can stand apart and independent from the many influences on the human mind that can skew the way they see things consciously or subconsciously. What ends up in the sub-conscience is still subject to subjective influence and therefore can be personalized and experienced differently. It is still an unreliable way to determine moral truth. Moral truths still can defy what is in the sub-conscience.That will do for a working hypothesis, although I suspect there is more to it than that, as more of our mind beyond the conscious part is involved.
Yes but this is reducing morality to a programmed response and not something that is live and interactive. Our superegos can still give a skewed sense of what is right and wrong causing the inner voice to be demanding or critical. We can also be programmed or indoctrinated so that our inner voice causes us unreal guilt or thinking. So, the “inner voice” is not always the best way to determine morality. We also need reasoning and that is something that allows us to be free agents that can determine what is right and wrong.It's not really a coincidence at all. They have the same moral values embedded in their superegos because they were all socialized in the same society, by adults similarly socialized, etc..
Actually I am not condemning a subjective position because not acting subjectively. I am saying they are acting objectively. There is a big difference. If you want to equate things to jealously then I would say that its the other way around. Subjectivists are using objectivity because they cannot function without it. They need it and want it so they are the ones longing for something they are not supposed to have.Yes, subjective moral values are not objective moral values.
You know, this line of argument is not doing you much good. Condemning moral subjectivists because they are not doing subjective morality according to your rules just makes you look jealous.
There is a difference between 'should and ought' morally and a person not acting consistently with who they are or how they should be acting. Just because subjectivists don't act the way they should act doesn't make it morally wrong. So a 'should' in this context doesn't have the value or obligation as morals do.Ugh! Then why do you keep telling me I should accept other people's viewpoints?!
But in this scenario they don't know what security is. No one has agreed to not steal from one another, so it's on me to convince them what it's like.They already associate that feeling with security. All you have to do is convince them that your pact will provide security.
That makes sense I guess. "More reasonable" meaning "More likely to be true", okay. But when an argument is shown to have a premise that is not true, then there's no more gauging reasonableness or the likelihood of it being true. How likely the other premises are doesn't matter in an unsound argument.Maybe... All foundational premises are based on induction or some non-deductive reasoning, and I think that helps get at the the idea that most premises contain some level of uncertainty. I'm mostly trying to focus on that uncertainty. If some premises are more certain than others, then some arguments are more reasonable than others (namely the ones with more certain premises).
I think your previous statements got the point across better, and I'm satisfied with the conclusion on that. I'm compelled to share my opinion on psychological subjects though so I have to point out that Freud was a fraud. Not only is case-study an awful way to make general statements about human psychology, he studies loonies, and when the data didn't match his theories he altered the findings to fit. It's ridiculous that he's the most famous psychologist in pop-culture. And CBT and psychoanalysis are techniques, I don't see them as "striking close to the truth". Different techniques work for different people, and it's good that people can find options that work for them.The principle is clear, though. Even within QM you have multiple different interpretations of quantum phenomena, and you will probably have to look at the strength of different theories without the convenience of demonstrating that only one is logically sound. Or, didn't you study psychology? Who was the psychologist who struck closer to the truth, Freud or Jung? What's better, CBT or psychoanalysis? etc.
The despairing individual desires to not act, though. Not wasting energy is the closest thing to a state of happiness they think is attainable. Like a guy in high school who never asks out any girls because he thinks the only answer he'll get is "no". Avoiding embarrassment is desire fulfillment too.Yeah... We should act on desires but not on every desire. I have a desire to propose to the woman I've been dating for three years, and I also have a desire to itch my poison ivy rash. "Desire" is a word that covers lots and lots of ground.
Hmm.. I suppose I think we should fulfill our desires if we believe they will lead us to happiness, and I think the normal state of the human being is a state that associates the fulfillment of desires with happiness. But if we've been around the block so many times that we become cynical then maybe we stop associating the fulfillment of desire with happiness (or even reduction of suffering). If someone does not believe that acting on their desires will improve their state, then obviously they would have no reason to act on their desires. I will admit that. At the same time I see that as a pathology, a kind of practical fallacy. It is the proposition that fulfillment is not possible. It is the sin of despair (which is often said to be the sin against the Holy Spirit that Christ spoke of).
Yet the despairing individual has basically stopped desiring. They have stopped seeking. So I'm still not convinced that desire is not intrinsically ordered to fulfillment.
Sounds circular. If I do good things then I deserve to have good things come my way, sounds reasonable. But what are good things to do? Whatever I desire is all we have so far. So if I do what I desire then I deserve what I desire?I don't find that to be a strong objection. We could simply circumvent it by limiting our choices to morally acceptable options (by assenting to the additional condition of desert).
See, that just sounds like an empty assertion to me: that if I say X I mean Y. Using "should" means that X is supposed to happen and you are the one who is supposed to cause it to happen. Why is X supposed to happen? Just because you want it to?Well you said, "He'll be happier," not, "He'll get what he wants." If the blue car will make him happier and he knows this (or even believes it) then he will get it. If you tell someone, "Doing this will make you happier than not doing it," you are saying, "You should do this." If they decide to believe you then they will do it.
You can make an okay case that desire is ordered to fulfillment based on the fact that we do it 100% of the time. We deny the truth all the time, so I don't see how you can make a case that "You just believe the truth". People believe what feels convincing to them, and that is quite often not the truth.Sure. I'm trying to connect the dots back to #462. I said that truth is ordered to belief and desire is ordered to fulfillment. You said sometimes truth and desire contradict. That's okay with me. I'm talking about the realities themselves in a general way. If they contradict at the very deepest levels of reality then we would have a problem, but I think we both acknowledge that the here and now is messy.
Some folks might be tempted to call a "no true scotsman" on that "healthy" remark, but I agree that we can equate normal and healthy in this instance. And since that's generally the extent I was pointing to a problem with the use of the word "universal", I agree. Everyone wants to be happy. Trouble is, what makes people happy is much, much less universal.I think there is a hierarchy and there are some universally held moral values at the top (or at least universally held in the healthy members of the species). Happiness, enjoyment, peace, recognition, etc.
Okay. I can't disagree, but I can't see anything of substance either. We're still just saying that people desire things, and they're interested in what they desire. Coupled with the statement above, people want to be happy and they're interested in their own happiness.But the most universally held moral value is probably the good. Awhile back I told Frumious that the first moral principle is usually said to be, "Do good and avoid evil." According to the definition I've given you: do what is desirable and avoid what is undesirable. Some people find pain desirable and pleasure undesirable, but they are still interested in the good.
Maybe I'm not explaining it clearly enough. Dopamine is in a mediatory role, the sensation of pleasure is what we're after. If you hooked a person up to a robust dopamine machine they would never leave it. It would be the most addictive thing on the planet and it would become the only thing they desire.Sure, I'll take your word for that. The reason I'm wary of dopamine as an explanation is because it strikes me as fulfilling a kind of mediatory role. I think dopamine helps us get what we want (and need), but I don't think it's dopamine itself that we're after. I don't think you could just hook someone up to a robust dopamine machine and convince them that they have everything they want.
Okay, makes sense. Saying, "I should desire this" doesn't necessarily mean I don't desire it, but I might not. "I should desire this, and I do." See? But it very well might be, "I should desire this, but I don't".Okay interesting. I don't find that approach overly helpful. I think there is probably less of a gap on the interpretation I gave. Your second statement was, "I should fulfill that desire." What desire? "The desire that I should have." On my interpretation the desire that you should fulfill is the desire you already have. That's a smaller gap. Saying, "I should desire this," is also apparently admitting that you don't desire it.
I agree with the second statements, I have to ask "Why?" about the first statements. If they are true, put them in a syllogism form for me with "we should believe things that are true" and "we should seek things that make us happy" as the conclusions. I'm bad at writing 'em, but I can read 'em just fine!Erm, I don't think so. I think you're misunderstanding the epistemological piece of these statements. It's true that we should believe things that are true, but it's also true that we do believe things that we know are true. It's true that we should seek things that make us happy, but it's also true that we do seek things we know (or believe) will make us happy. I was referring to the second statements in each pair. If you honestly believe something is true then you already believe it. I don't think it makes any sense to ask why someone believes the things they believe are true. Anyway, feel free to elaborate.
Whether someone deserves happiness or not, people almost universally feel that they do.Did I misunderstand your point above about desert? Your idea here about entitlement makes me wonder. I want to agree that we would not seek what we desire if we believed that we did not deserve happiness. At the same time, I'm having a hard time understanding what is meant by saying that one does not deserve happiness. Maybe it just means that it's not achievable, which results in the despair I noted above? If so, I agree.
"I decided to do X" isn't the same as "I should do X". See my Superman analogy above to address it.Yes, I think so. I think that's almost what it means to decide to do something. A deliberate desire is basically something you've decided is worth doing.
We covered this above.I'm following so long as pleasure isn't reduced to dopamine.
Yeah, our convos will likely run pretty parallel. And if he bothers to read these dissertations we've been writing he might find clues as to where I disagree with him, I just won't do it outright.Okay.I just wanted to point out that our conversation ties in.
(Of course, in that conversation you already expressed your opinion that if good is functionality then it's not clear how God is good)
No there is not. Worst case scenario, people are being hypocrites. But when we are assuming subjective morality, if we can't tell people that they shouldn't be murderers, then we can't tell people they shouldn't be hypocrites. All you can say is that you don't like it.There is a difference between should and ought morally and a person not acting consistent with who they are.
OK, I see what you mean now. Yes, I agree. But isn't that even taking a 'should' position in saying all you can do or are restricted to do is say "you don't like it"? It sort of narrows down what the person can and cannot do. Why do those who profess a subjective moral position still persist in saying people should not do this or that? And when they do from my position I think they should not do that if they are to be consistent with what their profess.No there is not. Worst case scenario, people are being hypocrites. But when we are assuming subjective morality, if we can't tell people that they shouldn't be murderers, then we can't tell people they shouldn't be hypocrites. All you can say is that you don't like it.
You are a fine one to talk. You claim superiority by virtue of your "objective" morality but have nothing beyond your subjective opinion of what it is to point to. Subjective moralists are certainly not "longing" to be in your unenviable state.Actually I am not condemning a subjective position because not acting subjectively. I am saying they are acting objectively. There is a big difference. If you want to equate things to jealously then I would say that its the other way around. Subjectivists are using objectivity because they cannot function without it. They need it and want it so they are the ones longing for something they are not supposed to have.
Subjective moralists don't need to "block out" their conscience and guilt. They understand that internalized precepts are fully a part of a subjective moral system.But you are right in that having to adhere to a certain moral truth can make a person long for being able to do things their way but the problem is unless you can block out your conscience and guilt it is too hard to do.
Because they are convinced the moral position they are promoting is the (subjectively) right moral position; a moral position everybody should have.But while we are here how do people who subscribe to subjective morality justify condemning people morally like they hold the truth about morality.
Why would you suggest a moral subjectivist should not have objectivity? Are you suggesting if a person believes morality is subjective, that such a person does not recognize there are plenty of other things that are objective?Actually I am not condemning a subjective position because not acting subjectively. I am saying they are acting objectively. There is a big difference. If you want to equate things to jealously then I would say that its the other way around. Subjectivists are using objectivity because they cannot function without it. They need it and want it so they are the ones longing for something they are not supposed to have.
If they are going to apply their subjective opinion to everyone, then they will have to appeal to something more grounded than "just my opinion".Because they are convinced the moral position they are promoting is the (subjectively) right moral position; a moral position everybody should have.....
No they don't. Point to a moral issue that is grounded in more than somebody's personal opinion.If they are going to apply their subjective opinion to everyone, then they will have to appeal to something more grounded than "just my opinion".
Nope. I'm up for talking, but let's just say that some measure of married life takes its toll on my desire to respond in some fuller way to each and every conversation I have going on here on CF.Are you bored with this conversation, Philo? I understand the large gaps between postings, we all have lives to lead outside of CF, but you also just skimmed that whole post and only addressed a tiny fraction of it. Those things together are causing me to believe you are losing interest in talking about this topic. Your posts are increasingly sounding like you're shrugging the conversation off. It's fine if you are.
Food. Food is 'good.' Sex. Safe sex with fidelity within a marriage is 'good.' Healing. Helping others to mend, heal or recover is 'good.' Altruism. Altruism is good just because a person in need might benefit.I also asked what makes justice, now described as fairness, good. How about some other things that you called good? Can you describe what are they and what makes them good? I can work with examples that demonstrate something to form an understanding but I need more than one to do so.
So for instance, when someone asks you why its bad to randomly kill your neighbor, all you can say back is "I dunno, I just think it is"......?No they don't. Point to a moral issue that is grounded in more than somebody's personal opinion.
No, I will give 101 subjective reasons why it is wrong to kill your neighbor. So if someone asks you why is male circumcision right but female circumcision is wrong, what do you say?So for instance, when someone asks you why its bad to randomly kill your neighbor, all you can say back is "I dunno, I just think it is"......?
Really? You wont point to objective real world things that other people can examine for truth?No, I will give 101 subjective reasons why it is wrong to kill your neighbor. So if someone asks you why is male circumcision right but female circumcision is wrong, what do you say?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?