Is morality Objective?

[Code-Monkey]

Let me retort with an equally invalid argument: what greater nonsense! Is there a single valid argument in your entire repetoire of responses, or are you just chock full to the brim with vacuous statements and unsupported denial?

Good, I expected this response. The truth is that you probably realize now how silly your statements were. It's like saying a tree doesn't make a sound if it falls in a forest unless someone is there to hear it. Or mathematics as a system doesn't exist until people develop language.

No... the simple truth is that mathematics & logic have existed long before people have. They are necessary elements of the universe, meaning they have always existed. 1+1 has always equalled 2. People don't invent mathematics, they discover it.

 

[Renew]

Morality can only be objective if there exists a moral arbiter that/who supersedes each persons individual experience of life.

Otherwise we fall into subjectivity, and right and wrong end up operating through constantly reinterpreted lines.

Moral relativism can be quite difficult, because what do you base your decisions upon?

Your instincts? The most recent scientific findings? More importantly, who can say?!

 

[Fledge]

If someone came in and said that my morality falls apart somehow if their are magical squid floating around in space behind the moons of Saturn, it is not up to me to prove that those squid don't exist. I have no burden when it comes to completely unsubstantiated and erroneous claims on the part of my opponent.

Pardon me if I am just inanely repeating myself, but I think the situation is different here. I think we both agree that your argument is flawed if God exists, and the contention at the moment is whether God does in fact, exist.

You made your argument without bothering to mention the fact that you were assuming that there is no God. So correct me if I'm wrong here, but you have a fourth premise which precedes the other three, and that premise is that God does not exist. If this is a premise in your argument, then it is perfectly legitimate for me to ask for some kind of support for it, isn't it?

The idea that there are magical squid floating in space somwhere in the vicinity of Saturn is an idea that I have never heard postulated before, so I have never heard any evidence for it, and a lone person screaming about magical squid would be a candidate for the looney bin. On the other hand, there are many people who believe in God (I know, appeal to majority is not proof), and we are both aware that there are arguments for and against the idea. Since this is not a completely new and foreign idea, it is not in the same category as magical squid.

(By the way, I told you what my basic assumption was. Would you be so kind as to return the favor? It might be easier/faster and more interesting to try and resolve this question by debating the consistency of the other person's worldview.)

 

[Socrastein]

Good, I expected this response. The truth is that you probably realize now how silly your statements were. It's like saying a tree doesn't make a sound if it falls in a forest unless someone is there to hear it. Or mathematics as a system doesn't exist until people develop language.

The proverbial tree question is answered depending on what one defines as sound. If one simply means vibrations in the air, then yes, a tree will make vibrations as it falls. But if by sound you mean what is actually heard by a person, then the fact that nobody is around to experience the vibrations as a sound means that there is no sound. Vibrations are not the same as the sound heard. But this is off-topic anyway.

No... the simple truth is that mathematics & logic have existed long before people have. They are necessary elements of the universe, meaning they have always existed. 1+1 has always equalled 2. People don't invent mathematics, they discover it.

You just said 4 times in a row "Math and logic have always been around" and yet not one time did you make an argument or refute my arguments.

 

[Code-Monkey]

You just said 4 times in a row "Math and logic have always been around" and yet not one time did you make an argument or refute my arguments.

Let's see then. Your argument was that math and logic only began to exist at the time language began. And further, logic only began to exist once people developed language that described, no invented logic. So I need to really refute that? Come on... You may want to hold on to the idea that apples didn't fall to the ground before someone yelled out gravity, but that's your own wishful thinking. Are you going to tell me that all logic, all math, all physics models broke down and didn't reall happen or exist before language was invented? To tell you the truth, I'm not sure how to refute your claim, that the math didn't exist, that logic didn't exist, that gravity didn't exist, and so forth until language began.

I'd like for you to prove that language creates a system of logic by which the entire universe operates.

This is growing tiresome... this whole time I think I'm talking about the actual model of logic, math, physics, and so forth... and you're speaking about the language that descibes it. Clearly the world has always operated on logical principles.. there hasn't been a time where the universe had no logic, or that some mathematical principle was not true. The fact that someone one day uttered the words "gravity" did not make it true at that moment. You know that. People have for a long described our processes of learning about the universe as one where we discover and describe, not one where we describe and our mere description creates.

 

[:æ:]

Let's see then. Your argument was that math and logic only began to exist at the time language began. And further, logic only began to exist once people developed language that described, no invented logic. So I need to really refute that? Come on...

Yes, if you believe that those propositions are false, then I think you should attempt to refute them.

You may want to hold on to the idea that apples didn't fall to the ground before someone yelled out gravity, but that's your own wishful thinking.

That isn't analagous. Logic (or language, more generally) is not a type of behavior that reality exhibits in the way that gravity is.

Are you going to tell me that all logic, all math, all physics models broke down and didn't reall happen or exist before language was invented?

I will. Do not confuse our descriptions of reality with reality's behavior.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure how to refute your claim, that the math didn't exist, that logic didn't exist, that gravity didn't exist, and so forth until language began.

Here your confusion is evident. It isn't that gravity didn't exist. It's that the scientific models of gravity, described in language, did not exist until they were invented.

I'd like for you to prove that language creates a system of logic by which the entire universe operates.

The universe doesn't operate "by logic."

This is growing tiresome... this whole time I think I'm talking about the actual model of logic, math, physics, and so forth... and you're speaking about the language that descibes it.

The "actual models" of logic, math, and physics are languages.

Clearly the world has always operated on logical principles..

Not really. It is rather that the world has always been described in logical language. It is not bound to behave according to any given set of logical axioms. That's why reality is describable in several different logical systems that differ markedly in the axioms that define them. Google "Quantum logic" and "Fuzzy logic" for examples that differ from elementary Aristotlean logic.

there hasn't been a time where the universe had no logic, or that some mathematical principle was not true.

The universe doesn't "have logic." Yours is a category error that renders your assertions nonsensical.

<snip the rest>

:æ:

 

[Code-Monkey]

That isn't analagous. Logic (or language, more generally) is not a type of behavior that reality exhibits in the way that gravity is.

It appears that we are simply divided and yet agree all at the same time. I'm more than happy to concede that our descriptions did not become descriptions until someone described.

What I don't concede is that the reality that is being described did not exist before they were described.

Is reality logical or is it illogical? If the language-created descriptions of physics are actually accurate (this causes that), then are our descriptions based upon logic? If they are based upon logic, is it rational to suggest that the natural law is also must succumb to logic? If the natural law must succumb to logic and it operates under the same principles that we describe mathematics with, then in fact logic and mathematics have always existed and are necessary parts of the universe.

 

[:æ:]

What I don't concede is that the reality that is being described did not exist before they were described.

Nor would I assert that.

Is reality logical or is it illogical?

Reality simply is. Our descriptions are logical or illogical to whatever extent they do or do not follow tautologically from the axioms of the logical system at hand.

If the language-created descriptions of physics are actually accurate (this causes that), then are our descriptions based upon logic? If they are based upon logic, is it rational to suggest that the natural law is also must succumb to logic?

No. You're putting the cart before the horse, as it were.

If the natural law must succumb to logic and it operates under the same principles that we describe mathematics with, then in fact logic and mathematics have always existed and are necessary parts of the universe.

You didn't look up quantum logic and fuzzy logic, did you? If you knew much about these, you'd realize that both are unique and distinct from eachother, as well as they are unique and distinct from elementary logic. Yet all three are capable of describing the behaviors of reality -- some simply more clearly than the others. Obvsiously, since this is the case, is cannot be that reality "succumbs to logic." Which logic is it "succumbing" to? It can't "succumb" to all of them, because they are each mutually exclusive to one another. Their axioms are fundamentally unique. If it only "succumbed" to one of them, then why do the others succeed in describing reality as well?

It can only be because logics are ex post facto descriptions of reality (or, even more accurately, our observations of reality). Logic doesn't rule the universe, but it does rule coherent language. That's why it is impossible to coherently describe the universe illogically, not because the universe "operates by logic."

:æ:

 

[SatKat]

man can never be objective when his own interests are involved

indeed.

Morality is subjective, i think i may be bold enough to call that a fact. don't have time for a long post. but that's my Opinion.

 

[Code-Monkey]

man can never be objective when his own interests are involved

indeed.

Morality is subjective, i think i may be bold enough to call that a fact. don't have time for a long post. but that's my Opinion.

Does this mean that man can never be objective on anything when his own interested are involved? And what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that man cannot come to the truth when his own interests are involved? It seems like a rather self-defeating claim.

But I'll play. I'm not looking at my own interest in this matter of morality, I'm looking out for everyone else's interests!

 

[Socrastein]

Let's see then. Your argument was that math and logic only began to exist at the time language began. And further, logic only began to exist once people developed language that described, no invented logic. So I need to really refute that? Come on... You may want to hold on to the idea that apples didn't fall to the ground before someone yelled out gravity, but that's your own wishful thinking.

You conveniently leave out the arguments I made in an attempt to ridicule. Either you're a jerk, or you're just desperate to make it look like you have a valid position.

Your statement regarding gravity is a straw man attack.

Are you going to tell me that all logic, all math, all physics models broke down and didn't really happen or exist before language was invented? To tell you the truth, I'm not sure how to refute your claim, that the math didn't exist, that logic didn't exist, that gravity didn't exist, and so forth until language began.

I don't recall ever applying my argument to physics. I kept it in the realm of logic and math. Like I said, the laws of logic are truths by definition. You cannot have truths by definition without language, quite obviously. Why does A = A? Because we have defined A as such. Why can X not be true and false at the same time? Because the word true and the word false are defined in a way that they are mutually exclusive. Without language and these words thusly defined, there would be no such thing as a contradiction. This is a linguistic construct that arises when the definitions of our words exclude the mutual validity of one another. Law of excluded middle arises from the jointly exhaustive nature of the words true and false, meaning by definition there is no option, because those two words exhaust all the options together. The words true and false are defined in such a way that they are both mutually exclusive (Law of noncontradiction thus is created) and jointly exhaustive (Law of excluded middle is thus created). These words do not "exist" anywhere in the universe transcendent of humans and our use of language, and thus it's nonsense to say that these definitions were around from which these laws of logic could arise, before humans even defined them.

And I already mentioned how different math systems treat identical equations and formulae differently because of the axioms they are based on. Like I already said before, math is a deductive system of logic based on various axioms. You start with these axioms dealing with numbers and sets and what not, and from them deduce various relationships, patterns, and equations. But without people to put these axioms in place, and then apply logical deduction to them (Logic again arising from our language as has been mentioned) there is no math. You seem to be advocating the Platonic theory of forms, that there are transcendent metaphysical absolutes floating around in some higher universe for all eternity. Quite simply, there is no good reason to suspect such a notion. I will not get into a debate of Plato and his theory of forms however, this will side-track the thread substantially.

Clearly the world has always operated on logical principles.. there hasn't been a time where the universe had no logic, or that some mathematical principle was not true.

Operated on what logical principles? You mean like, there was never a star that was both 5 billion years old and not 5 billion years old? Like I demonstrated in detail, this is just a consequence of our language and how we define true and false. There is no metaphysical true, no metaphysical false, and certainly no metaphysical proposition floating around out there that has always stated the law of noncontradiction.

What I don't concede is that the reality that is being described did not exist before they were described

Where did this idealistic, solipsistic straw man come from?

Logic doesn't rule the universe, but it does rule coherent language.

Exactly.