Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

It isn't a correct thing to do, nor is it an incorrect thing to do. Acts aren't correct or incorrect. Correctness isn't a property acts have.

You might as well be asking me "Is the number three purple or yellow?". It's neither. Color isn't a property that numbers have.

But correctness(or incorrectness in this case) is a property the person doing the act has. Unless you disagree they’re incorrect for thinking 2+2=5?

Do you have the property of correctness when you acknowledge 2+2=4? If that’s not how you understand it then how do you understand the state of someone being correct? Is it a property, intrinsic, something else entirely, how would you phrase it?

Once you figure that out, could you try to repeat my argument back to me with your wording to see if that helps either of us figure where we’re being illogical. That’s something professionals do right?

 

[Moral Orel]

But correctness(or incorrectness in this case) is a property the person doing the act has. Unless you disagree they’re incorrect for thinking 2+2=5?

Do you have the property of correctness when you acknowledge 2+2=4? If that’s not how you understand it then how do you understand the state of someone being correct? Is it a property, intrinsic, something else entirely, how would you phrase it?

Once you figure that out, could you try to repeat my argument back to me with your wording to see if that helps either of us figure where we’re being illogical. That’s something professionals do right?

The person is not correct or incorrect, that isn't a property the person has either. We say that colloquially, but that is not accurate either. When we say "Bob is correct" what we mean is that "Bob stated something, and that something is correct".

I gain the same property that a statement has? A person and a string of words can share a property? That doesn't really make any sense when you think about it. The words "correct" and "true" are basically interchangeable. Statements are true, statements are correct. Not people.

Your argument seems to be nothing more than semantics. Trying to put properties into things that don't really have them just because humans phrase things in strange ways. How we happen to commonly phrase things does not indicate how reality actually is.

 

[o_mlly]

You mean this one?

Nope. Go back a little farther.

Not from you. Because there's a fourth state of knowledge you didn't consider -- error.

Nope. Apparently you do not get it. There are 2 kinds of ignorance. You know you don't know and you don't know you don't know. The surprise to learn you were in error is the latter.

Man comes home (in Reno, of course) one night and finds a man in bed with his wife. She screams "Rape!" and the man instinctively pulls out a gun and shoots the would-be rapist.

Except... it's not rape, merely adultery. The wife panicked, you see.

The man's actions -- based on the knowledge he had at the time -- were morally justified. The wife is a different story.

(A true story, btw -- but in Texas, not Reno. The husband wasn't charged with any crime; the wife got 5 years. Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter )

Thanks for the link. Your anecdote helps prove my point. The man was ignorant. The wife was not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nope. Go back a little farther.

Nope. Apparently you do not get it. There are 2 kinds of ignorance. You know you don't know and you don't know you don't know. The surprise to learn you were in error is the latter.

I see -- you're considering erroneous knowledge to be a form of ignorance.

 

[o_mlly]

I shot two men. You need to qualify the act to determine its morality. As has already been asked, what makes you say the first man was innocent?

No I don't need to qualify anything. The human act under examination has been fully specified.

As the victim is innocent, it does not matter who says the man is innocent or not. Nor does it matter who shot him to death. Nor does the shooter's intention matter. The act, as you have already agreed, is an immoral act in itself. I think we're done.

 

[Chriliman]

The person is not correct or incorrect, that isn't a property the person has either. We say that colloquially, but that is not accurate either. When we say "Bob is correct" what we mean is that "Bob stated something, and that something is correct".

I gain the same property that a statement has? A person and a string of words can share a property? That doesn't really make any sense when you think about it. The words "correct" and "true" are basically interchangeable. Statements are true, statements are correct. Not people.

Your argument seems to be nothing more than semantics. Trying to put properties into things that don't really have them just because humans phrase things in strange ways. How we happen to commonly phrase things does not indicate how reality actually is.

So your correct statements just appear, they don’t come from your correct thinking? Or is your thinking not really correct either? Or not really you?

 

[o_mlly]

I see -- you're considering erroneous knowledge to be a form of ignorance.

Look up "oxymoron". One can have an erroneous assumption. But "erroneous knowledge"? Not so much.

 

[Moral Orel]

So your correct statements just appear, they don’t come from your correct thinking? Or is your thinking not really correct either or not really you?

Statements are correct. Not "thinking".

 

[Chriliman]

Statements are correct. Not "thinking".

Assuming correct statements don’t just appear, where do they come from? And is the source not also correct?

 

[Moral Orel]

Assuming correct statements don’t just appear, where do they come from?

They come from the same locations that incorrect statements come from. People's mouths, usually.

And is the source not also correct?

Statements are correct. Statements are true. That's it. No other things are correct or true. I hope that answers any more questions you have about what is and is not correct.

 

[Chriliman]

They come from the same locations that incorrect statements come from. People's mouths, usually.

Statements are correct. Statements are true. That's it. No other things are correct or true. I hope that answers any more questions you have about what is and is not correct.

So correct thinking that produces correct statements isn’t a thing to you?

Correct statements come from mouths?(even tho you didn’t have to speak once during any of our conversations) I guess they also come from typing fingers?

 

[Moral Orel]

So correct thinking that produces correct statements isn’t a thing to you?

Already answered.

Is there going to be anything more to this exchange than just getting me to phrase things in just the right way for you to make some point?

 

[Chriliman]

Already answered.

Is there going to be anything more to this exchange than just getting me to phrase things in just the right way for you to make some point?

No, we can be done even tho I’m still perplexed by your comments.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, we can be done even tho I’m still perplexed by your comments.

My comments about how to phrase things aren't an argument in themselves. They're an attempt to clear up communication.

In a valid argument, terms used always use the same exact meaning. If you say "Bob is correct" and you say "2+2=4" is correct, you are not using "correct" to mean the exact same thing. To say "Bob is correct" is to mean that "Bob made a correct statement". To say "2+2=4 is correct" is to say that "the statement is true".

When you say "Bob is correct" to mean "Bob made a correct statement" just say "Bob made a correct statement". Say exactly, literally, what you mean. That's all this was about.

 

[Chriliman]

My comments about how to phrase things aren't an argument in themselves. They're an attempt to clear up communication.

In a valid argument, terms used always use the same exact meaning. If you say "Bob is correct" and you say "2+2=4" is correct, you are not using "correct" to mean the exact same thing. To say "Bob is correct" is to mean that "Bob made a correct statement". To say "2+2=4 is correct" is to say that "the statement is true".

When you say "Bob is correct" to mean "Bob made a correct statement" just say "Bob made a correct statement". Say exactly, literally, what you mean. That's all this was about.

I get that, I’m just wondering how you think it’s possible for Bob to make a correct statement?

 

[Moral Orel]

I get that, I’m just wondering how you think it’s possible for Bob to make a correct statement?

Perhaps you mean "How is a true statement formed". We form true statements by using reason or describing reality. We can only really reason about things we observe in reality, and can then make inferences.

 

[Bradskii]

No I don't need to qualify anything. The human act under examination has been fully specified.

As the victim is innocent, it does not matter who says the man is innocent or not.

You do realise that we're talking two men here? That has been specified. You don't know if the first one was innocent. He might be. He might not. Until you know the details you can't tell if it's a moral act or not. Which is the point.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Look up "oxymoron". One can have an erroneous assumption. But "erroneous knowledge"? Not so much.

Like jumbo shrimp?
Clearly confused?
Original copy?
Seriously funny?
Bittersweet?
Government integrity?

The world is full of things that you'd think shouldn't exist, yet there they are

 

[Chriliman]

Perhaps you mean "How is a true statement formed". We form true statements by using reason or describing reality. We can only really reason about things we observe in reality, and can then make inferences.

Ok great, I agree. Now, can you rephrase the following in a way you can agree with:
We use our minds to reason and our minds exist in objective reality, therefore reason is objective.

Maybe like this?
P1 Our minds can reason
P2 Our minds exist in objective reality
C Therefore, reason is objective

This argument is actually vary similar to one of my very first posts on this thread #1347. Thoughts?

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok great, I agree. Now, can you rephrase the following in a way you can agree with:
We use our minds to reason and our minds exist in objective reality, therefore reason is objective.

Maybe like this?
P1 Our minds can reason
P2 Our minds exist in objective reality
C Therefore, reason is objective

This argument is actually vary similar to one of my very first posts on this thread #1347. Thoughts?

I don't get it. I mean, everything that exists, exists in "objective reality", even irrational things.