Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

When you look deeper, the dictionary definition doesn't suffice. This often happens

Look things we called facts that were later proven untrue. You begin to see that "fact" is a unit of human knowledge, subject to revision.

I think our entire discussion should be based on the assumption that we can accurately determine facts that can never be proven untrue. Do you think that's possible? Because if its not possible then I see no point in even trying to determine facts from delusion.

 

[durangodawood]

I think our entire discussion should be based on the assumption that we can accurately determine facts that can never be proven untrue. Do you think that's possible? Because if its not possible then I see no point in even trying to determine facts from delusion.

In many realms I think we have good success in proposing facts which correspond well to truth.

But examination reveals facts are units of human knowledge that have met certain tests for correspondence with truth. But they are obviously not just "truth", proven by examples facts that have had to be revised or abandoned.

 

[Chriliman]

In many realms I think we have good success in proposing facts which correspond well to truth.

But examination reveals facts are units of human knowledge that have met certain tests for correspondence with truth. But they are obviously not just "truth", proven by examples facts that have had to be revised or abandoned.

I see. I would argue the “facts” that were later proven untrue weren’t really facts, but rather, were either lies or misunderstandings. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

 

[durangodawood]

I see. I would argue the “facts” that were later proven untrue weren’t really facts, but rather, were either lies or misunderstandings. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

Truth is what we want facts to be. But "fact" as a unit of human knowledge accurately describes what facts really are when we examine the situation.

A proposition becomes a "fact" when enough people agree it has met the culture's tests for correspondence with truth. There's room for error there.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I see. I would argue the “facts” that were later proven untrue weren’t really facts, but rather, were either lies or misunderstandings. Of course hindsight is 20/20.

If I tell you there's a rock in my front yard, and you by and see it. If you come by a week later and the rock isn't there, did I lie? Did you lie to yourself? Did you misunderstand? Did I misunderstand?

Or maybe I just moved the rock. Facts can change. It happens all the time that a statement was and is not now true.

 

[Chriliman]

If I tell you there's a rock in my front yard, and you by and see it. If you come by a week later and the rock isn't there, did I lie? Did you lie to yourself? Did you misunderstand? Did I misunderstand?

Or maybe I just moved the rock. Facts can change. It happens all the time that a statement was and is not now true.

Obviously, I’m not disputing that. Durangadogwood was positing that facts are often proven untrue and are therefore not truths, or something like that, you’ll have to read his posts to understand what he’s saying exactly.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Obviously, I’m not disputing that. Durangadogwood was positing that facts are often proven untrue and are therefore not truths, or something like that, you’ll have to read his posts to understand what he’s saying exactly.

I think it's like Newton's laws of motion were considered fact until Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I think it's like Newton's laws of motion were considered fact until Einstein's theory of relativity.

Newton's laws are still considered facts. They work just fine, until you get up to very large scales, at which point you need Einstein. And neither of them can account for quantum physics. That's why we're still in search of a grand unified theory, one that works in all three scales. That's something that humans, as pattern-seeking mammals, have trouble conceiving of - that there are really three different scales to the universe, and three different physics to describe each one. All three are "correct", yet none of them cooperate with one another.

Turns out, reality is not as neat as we'd like to imagine it is, and there is quite a bit of plasticity to those things we think of as indisputable facts.

To the point though...no amount of fact will ever get you to an "absolute morality". Morality requires value judgements. "Absolute value" is an oxymoron. So is "objective value".

 

[Tinker Grey]

Newton's laws are still considered facts. They work just fine, until you get up to very large scales, at which point you need Einstein. And neither of them can account for quantum physics. That's why we're still in search of a grand unified theory, one that works in all three scales. That's something that humans, as pattern-seeking mammals, have trouble conceiving of - that there are really three different scales to the universe, and three different physics to describe each one. All three are "correct", yet none of them cooperate with one another.

Turns out, reality is not as neat as we'd like to imagine it is, and there is quite a bit of plasticity to those things we think of as indisputable facts.

To the point though...no amount of fact will ever get you to an "absolute morality". Morality requires value judgements. "Absolute value" is an oxymoron. So is "objective value".

I think, though, that the confusion between @Chriliman and @durangodawood is along these lines. Newton is wrong at large scales. As such, for a given definition of fact, Newton's laws aren't. However, it is a "fact" that Newton's laws work for the average person (such as myself).

But, for myself, that fascination with objective, fact, absolute, truth and the like is overblown. I'm interested in what ideas I hold allow me to make predictions adequately for a good life. I'm interested in "true enough".

That's not to say that discussion over the centuries haven't had their value.

 

[durangodawood]

I think, though, that the confusion between @Chriliman and @durangodawood is along these lines. Newton is wrong at large scales. As such, for a given definition of fact, Newton's laws aren't. However, it is a "fact" that Newton's laws work for the average person (such as myself).

But, for myself, that fascination with objective, fact, absolute, truth and the like is overblown. I'm interested in what ideas I hold allow me to make predictions adequately for a good life. I'm interested in "true enough".

That's not to say that discussion over the centuries haven't had their value.

For an example I prefer a (former) fact like: normal humans have 48 chromosomes. Its not just inapplicable at certain scales. Its now considered plain wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

I think it's like Newton's laws of motion were considered fact until Einstein's theory of relativity.

Agree, so the “fact” at the time was limited to our knowledge at the time.

 

[durangodawood]

Agree, so the “fact” at the time was limited to our knowledge at the time.

We called it a "fact" according to how we use and think about the word.

Its evidence that really facts are units of human knowledge, which aims for, but is not identical to, truth.

 

[Chriliman]

.

 

[Moral Orel]

But the claim(or imperative) is based on the facts of the situation and therefore anyone who may want to ignore the facts and do what they want anyway, should expect resistance. Key points are "based on the facts" and "ignore the facts" for why the imperative is correct/right/good and why ignoring the facts is incorrect/wrong/bad.

You described a situation and then pulled the imperative out of thin air. You don't have enough facts to support your claim, is the point.

 

[Moral Orel]

We called it a "fact" according to how we use and think about the word.

Its evidence that really facts are units of human knowledge, which aims for, but is not identical to, truth.

That's not how language works. Words mean whatever we want them to. Whatever thing we want a word to convey is what it conveys. Just because we were wrong in a lot of instances that we called a thing a fact doesn't alter the meaning of the word. That's ridiculous. 2+2=4 is a fact. It is true, it is proven, it is not subject to correction.

 

[durangodawood]

That's not how language works. Words mean whatever we want them to. Whatever thing we want a word to convey is what it conveys. Just because we were wrong in a lot of instances that we called a thing a fact doesn't alter the meaning of the word. That's ridiculous. 2+2=4 is a fact. It is true, it is proven, it is not subject to correction.

Yes. 2+2=4 is a fact, a unit of human knowledge, that corresponds well to truth.

Other fact nots so much. I dont know which ones right now. But wait and see....

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes. 2+2=4 is a fact, a unit of human knowledge, that corresponds well to truth.

Other fact nots so much. I dont know which ones right now. But wait and see....

When we say that a thing is a fact, we are saying that it is true. Sometimes we are correct and sometimes we are incorrect. When we discover that we were incorrect, we discover that it was never a fact. None of that requires redefining a word.

A fact is a thing that is true. That's it. I claim that "I like chocolate ice cream" is a fact. Is there any way you can imagine that I could be incorrect about my claim? And remember, we're talking about introspection, so we aren't talking about whether I'm lying to you or not. I remember enjoying experiencing chocolate ice cream. I expect to enjoy that experience if I have it again. I want to experience it again. Therefore I "like" chocolate ice cream. How could I have made a mistake based on some personal bias?

 

[durangodawood]

When we say that a thing is a fact, we are saying that it is true.

This^ part I agree with. At any rate, this sidebar is not critical to the heart of the topic.

...I claim that "I like chocolate ice cream" is a fact. Is there any way you can imagine that I could be incorrect about my claim? And remember, we're talking about introspection, so we aren't talking about whether I'm lying to you or not. I remember enjoying experiencing chocolate ice cream. I expect to enjoy that experience if I have it again. I want to experience it again. Therefore I "like" chocolate ice cream. How could I have made a mistake based on some personal bias?

Introspection is notoriously unreliable. People keep all kinds of secrets from themselves, tell false stories about themselves to themselves. Why do you think we have loads of therapists and religions? The human heart can be a hall of mirrors and trap doors. In this regard subjective biases can absolutely influence reports of inward examinations. Probably moreso on average than external observations.

 

[LightLoveHope]

I think our entire discussion should be based on the assumption that we can accurately determine facts that can never be proven untrue. Do you think that's possible? Because if its not possible then I see no point in even trying to determine facts from delusion.

In the abstract sense, do we need to put effort into determining facts that are obvious in a practical sense. On a simple everyday life sense most things stand out. On a more complicated sense for instance in electronics or software languages, differentiating between facts and mere suggestions is critical. When a system requires everything to work 100% or nothing works, facts become very clear cut.

I have to laugh, because we all know how to walk and how risky it all is especially when going down stairs yet the facts of walking we would not argue about and do everyday.

What is amazing is in modern society we accept food is clean and safe, guaranteed to not poison us or have gone off etc. We literally put our lives on the line in this belief. But we also know it is based on faith in the system, on the companies and institutions that keep this true and make it happen.

When you start putting terms like absolute, perfect, 100% with no risk, you pass from the practical into the delusional. Why do people want absolute truth, when the truth they have is good enough to live by. Why do we crave certainty of income or future in family, relationships, health etc when what matters more is our day to day interactions and do the immediate things work well.

Jesus talked about us becoming like children to enter the Kingdom and not worrying about tomorrow.
So the search for absolute certainty or truth I believe is an attempt to answer our insecurities but is putting the emphasis where it will never be resolved. We need to know God loves us.

God bless you

 

[Moral Orel]

Introspection is notoriously unreliable. People keep all kinds of secrets from themselves, tell false stories about themselves to themselves. Why do you think we have loads of therapists and religions? The human heart can be a hall of mirrors and trap doors. In this regard subjective biases can absolutely influence reports of inward examinations. Probably moreso on average than external observations.

In what way can I be wrong about the fact that I like chocolate ice cream? Specifically.