Morality Just Is

[J_B_]

In the attached video, at time stamp 9:44, the statement is made, "Moral behavior depends not on moral reasoning, but on having the right terminal goals."

To understand what he means by terminal goals, you'll have to watch the video. However, at another point he states a corollary that terminal goals are not found by reasoning. They just are.

My summary would be that he is saying morality is not found by reasoning. It just is.

If you disagree, what is your counter argument? Again, you'll probably have to watch the video to argue against his position ... though I suspect some will argue against it without watching. That'll be fun as well, but for different reasons.

 

[Bradskii]

In the attached video, at time stamp 9:44, the statement is made, "Moral behavior depends not on moral reasoning, but on having the right terminal goals."

To understand what he means by terminal goals, you'll have to watch the video. However, at another point he states a corollary that terminal goals are not found by reasoning. They just are.

My summary would be that he is saying morality is not found by reasoning. It just is.

If you disagree, what is your counter argument? Again, you'll probably have to watch the video to argue against his position ... though I suspect some will argue against it without watching. That'll be fun as well, but for different reasons.

You want me to argue against some random dude on the internet who has put up a 15 minute Youtube video? I'll pass. But anytime you want to put forward your position on morality, let me know.

 

[J_B_]

You want me to argue against some random dude on the internet who has put up a 15 minute Youtube video? I'll pass. But anytime you want to put forward your position on morality, let me know.

Noted.

 

[Occams Barber]

You want me to argue against some random dude on the internet who has put up a 15 minute Youtube video? I'll pass. But anytime you want to put forward your position on morality, let me know.

I'm with @Bradskii.

There's a bit of a thing going on around here where someone puts up someone else's argument then runs away or takes no responsibility. This leaves the rest of stuck with the effort of working out what the video is supposed to be asserting.

If you can't express the argument in the video then you certainly can't explain it or defend it. If the argument isn't something you agree with then why are you putting it forward?

OB

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Hi J_B_,

Thank you for linking to this video. I've watched it twice now and I need to watch it at least one more time to be clear on what his argument is. Just right off the bat though I see where he goes off the rails and that's in taking Hume's conclusions for granted. Hume made a number of errors in coming to his skeptical conclusions. One big error on his part is his duty-based view of morality instead of a values-based view. That is why he arrived at the is/ought problem in the first place. I want to study the video some more and maybe brush up on my Hume since it's been a couple of years since I read him. So I'll comment further in a while.

 

[J_B_]

I'm with @Bradskii.

There's a bit of a thing going on around here where someone puts up someone else's argument then runs away or takes no responsibility. This leaves the rest of stuck with the effort of working out what the video is supposed to be asserting.

If you can't express the argument in the video then you certainly can't explain it or defend it. If the argument isn't something you agree with then why are you putting it forward?

Or could it be I was trying to avoid a wall of text and my possible misrepresentations of the argument?

I provided a time stamp, the actual quote I was interested in, and a brief summary of what I took from the video. If you are intrigued, but don't have sufficient information, politely ask me to expand on the OP. I would be happy to oblige.

But thank you for explaining all the things I can't do. At least we're clear on that. I also realize you couldn't get anything from the OP and you'd prefer not to participate. Noted.

 

[J_B_]

Thank you for linking to this video. I've watched it twice now and I need to watch it at least one more time to be clear on what his argument is. Just right off the bat though I see where he goes off the rails and that's in taking Hume's conclusions for granted. Hume made a number of errors in coming to his skeptical conclusions. One big error on his part is his duty-based view of morality instead of a values-based view. That is why he arrived at the is/ought problem in the first place. I want to study the video some more and maybe brush up on my Hume since it's been a couple of years since I read him. So I'll comment further in a while.

Thanks.

I'm aware of the basics of Hume's views, but am by no means intimately acquainted. The video was at first intriguing, the idea tantalizing, but once I realized he was basing his position on Hume my thought was, "Oh, I'm sure someone has a counterargument to this."

Actually, I had 2 thoughts about it. The second was that it's intriguing Hume might have something I agree with and find useful. But if his position crumbles, I suppose not.

It seems you may have that counter argument, so I'd be very interested in learning more about it.

 

[o_mlly]

My summary would be that he is saying morality is not found by reasoning. It just is.

I would claim that only rational animals can have moral codes. If morality "just is" then irrational humans would possess the code just as surely as rational humans. But they don't.

 

[J_B_]

I would claim that only rational animals can have moral codes. If morality "just is" then irrational humans would possess the code just as surely as rational humans. But they don't.

Saying morality "just is" is not a claim of absolute morality or that all people adhere to the same morality. It's simply a statement that people don't reason their way to a moral system - even if they think they have.

 

[o_mlly]

Saying morality "just is" is not a claim of absolute morality or that all people adhere to the same morality. It's simply a statement that people don't reason their way to a moral system - even if they think they have.

If the claim is morality "just is" whatever one feels it is then there's no argument possible. Regarding how a person feels, that person is infallible (if he's honest).

 

[J_B_]

If the claim is morality "just is" whatever one feels it is then there's no argument possible. Regarding how a person feels, that person is infallible (if he's honest).

Emotion could be the source, and then you'd be right. I'm still waiting on @The happy Objectivist for clarification on his comments.

 

[durangodawood]

In the attached video, at time stamp 9:44, the statement is made, "Moral behavior depends not on moral reasoning, but on having the right terminal goals."

To understand what he means by terminal goals, you'll have to watch the video. However, at another point he states a corollary that terminal goals are not found by reasoning. They just are.

My summary would be that he is saying morality is not found by reasoning. It just is.

If you disagree, what is your counter argument? Again, you'll probably have to watch the video to argue against his position ... though I suspect some will argue against it without watching. That'll be fun as well, but for different reasons.

If "goals" are basically "values", the yeah, most of the big moral rules derive from wisdom about what satisfies them.

And our values largely "just are" in the sense that they are natural to the human species, at least in a statistically predominant sense.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Thanks.

I'm aware of the basics of Hume's views, but am by no means intimately acquainted. The video was at first intriguing, the idea tantalizing, but once I realized he was basing his position on Hume my thought was, "Oh, I'm sure someone has a counterargument to this."

Actually, I had 2 thoughts about it. The second was that it's intriguing Hume might have something I agree with and find useful. But if his position crumbles, I suppose not.

It seems you may have that counter argument, so I'd be very interested in learning more about it.

Hi J.B.,

Sorry for my absence. I've suddenly gotten very busy at work and haven't had time to comment.

I'm not intimately knowledgeable about Hume either. I read An Enquiry into Human Understanding and I don't think I even finished it but I made a number of observations that I think are errors.

The notion that knowledge begins with sensation.

The view that causality is a connection between events rather than between an entity and its actions.

That concepts are formed arbitrarily.

That he does not specify that knowledge is contextual and therefore so is certainty. This is a problem that all skeptics share.

But let's look at the notion that Morality "just is" or is metaphysically given*. If knowledge just is as a rock or a star or a rainbow just is, then it can not be true or false, it just is. When dealing with the metaphysically given, one either accepts it or doesn't, there's no judging it true or false just as we don't say a rock, a star, or a rainbow are true or false, they just are. It's only a product of a human mind that needs to be judged true or false since man's mind does not automatically produce true statements about reality at the conceptual level of consciousness. We can make mistakes or we can drop context or we can evade. The notion of a statement about a principle neither being true or false is ridiculous. That's all the counterargument one needs, that this notion treats the conceptual as metaphysically given. So that's a package deal fallacy. Then there are the stolen concepts that result from conceptual knowledge without a mind involved. Then there is the error of confusing the how, i.e., confusing facts with statements about facts. Those are just some quick observations.



* That which comes about without the input of human choice.

 

[J_B_]

Hi J.B.,

Sorry for my absence. I've suddenly gotten very busy at work and haven't had time to comment.

I'm not intimately knowledgeable about Hume either. I read An Enquiry into Human Understanding and I don't think I even finished it but I made a number of observations that I think are errors.

The notion that knowledge begins with sensation.

The view that causality is a connection between events rather than between an entity and its actions.

That concepts are formed arbitrarily.

That he does not specify that knowledge is contextual and therefore so is certainty. This is a problem that all sceptics share.

No problem. Thanks for the reply. I'll be honest that I'm not sure I grasp all your observations above. So, it isn't that I agree or disagree with them, but in general, you seem to be presenting them as self-evidentially erroneous. Do you have more extensive reasons for objecting?

But let's look at the notion that Morality "just is" or is metaphysically given*. If knowledge just is as a rock or a star or a rainbow just is, then it can not be true or false, it just is. When dealing with the metaphysically given, one either accepts it or doesn't, there's no judging it true or false just as we don't say a rock, a star, or a rainbow are true or false, they just are. It's only a product of a human mind that needs to be judged true or false since man's mind does not automatically produce true statements about reality at the conceptual level of consciousness. We can make mistakes or we can drop context or we can evade. The notion of a statement about a principle neither being true or false is ridiculous. That's all the counterargument one needs, that this notion treats the conceptual as metaphysically given.

* That which comes about without the input of human choice.

Since this is the one you spent the most time on, we can forego the others if you prefer and just discuss this. You've done an excellent job of summarizing your idea, though I suppose this probably isn't the only way to formulate it. Again, not that I would get behind the idea of "just is" as you've articulated it, but it's a very intriguing notion.

As such, I ask, why not? Why can't this be the case?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

No problem. Thanks for the reply. I'll be honest that I'm not sure I grasp all your observations above. So, it isn't that I agree or disagree with them, but in general, you seem to be presenting them as self-evidentially erroneous. Do you have more extensive reasons for objecting?

Not a problem.

Since this is the one you spent the most time on, we can forego the others if you prefer and just discuss this. You've done an excellent job of summarizing your idea, though I suppose this probably isn't the only way to formulate it. Again, not that I would get behind the idea of "just is" as you've articulated it, but it's a very intriguing notion.

As such, I ask, why not? Why can't this be the case?

How can it be the case that morality is not metaphysically given? Because the conceptual process involves human choice. That's why we need an objective method, logic, to guide our thinking and to keep us in contact with reality. I recommend you get a copy of the Metaphysical vs. the Manmade, by Ayn Rand. I don't know whether its available online but it is reprinted in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Yes it is an intriguing notion and that's why it's been the notion that almost all philosophers have glommed onto. That and the notion that morality exists in the mind apart from reality (subjective morality) Ayn Rand is the only philosopher that proposed and validated an objective view of morality.

 

[J_B_]

Ah. Ayn Rand. I've never been convinced by anything Rand wrote or said, nor by those who subscribe to her view. But I don't want this to turn into a debate over Rand. So, the comments that follow are intended to keep this on track with respect to the OP, not to cause a diversion.

That's why we need an objective method, logic, to guide our thinking and to keep us in contact with reality.

Yeah, but you'll never get agreement on what that method is or it's results. It would take a being with infinite capacity to process all the variables.

How can it be the case that morality is not metaphysically given? Because the conceptual process involves human choice.

That takes us back to Is/Ought. I guess you'll need to try again to explain why you think there's an error in that dichotomy.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yeah, but you'll never get agreement on what that method is or it's results. It would take a being with infinite capacity to process all the variables.

No agreement is necessary. Logic is the method of objectivity. Objectivity is the volitional adherence to reality by a specific method, one that works with facts and is appropriate to the kind of consciousness man possesses. Man's consciousness works on the principle of the primacy of existence. This means that consciousness is the faculty with perceives existence and not the faculty that creates it. Reality is primary. If it wasn't no method of knowledge would be necessary since whatever anyone thought, no matter how bizarre or contradictory would be true by virtue of the fact that one thought it. So no agreement is necessary only correspondence to the facts. Any other method of knowledge would necessarily be a volitional departing from reality.

We don't need to process all the variables, we just need to process that man is a being of a specific nature and therefore he must act in specific ways to live. The primary virtue that man needs to practice is the full, rational use of his mind. I can judge any act as moral or immoral in relation to this. Whatever thwarts the full rational use of man's mind is immoral. Therefore the initiation of any type of force is immoral.

That takes us back to Is/Ought. I guess you'll need to try again to explain why you think there's an error in that dichotomy.

Because it arises out of the deontological view of morality which is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the commanded.

 

[J_B_]

No agreement is necessary. Logic is the method of objectivity. Objectivity is the volitional adherence to reality by a specific method, one that works with facts and is appropriate to the kind of consciousness man possesses. Man's consciousness works on the principle of the primacy of existence. This means that consciousness is the faculty with perceives existence and not the faculty that creates it. Reality is primary. If it wasn't no method of knowledge would be necessary since whatever anyone thought, no matter how bizarre or contradictory would be true by virtue of the fact that one thought it. So no agreement is necessary only correspondence to the facts.

We don't need to process all the variables, we just need to process that man is a being of a specific nature and therefore he must act in specific ways to live. The primary virtue that man needs to practice is the full, rational use of his mind. I can judge any act as moral or immoral in relation to this. Whatever thwarts the full rational use of man's mind is immoral. Therefore the initiation of any type of force is immoral.

Because it arises out of the deontological view of morality which is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the commanded.

Thanks for clarifying. As I was wrestling with why you're not convincing me, it struck me that you seem to be posing what you think "ought" to be as if it "is". Then I started laughing. I think we're going to go in circles from here, but I do sincerely thank you for explaining.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Thanks for clarifying. As I was wrestling with why you're not convincing me, it struck me that you seem to be posing what you think "ought" to be as if it "is". Then I started laughing. I think we're going to go in circles from here, but I do sincerely thank you for explaining.

I'm not doing that at all. A commandment is something that one must act upon regardless of one's thinking or choices. If a man can not choose his actions then there can be no talk of what he ought to do. Man has a volitional form of consciousness, that's a fact, that's an "is". Man has to act in specific ways in order to live. That's a fact, that's an "is". The bridge between "is" and "ought" is values. If a man values life and wants to continue living, then he ought to act in specific ways, seeking those values which his life requires, which values are determined by his nature.

Value: Anything one acts to gain or keep for the purpose of furthering his life.

 

[J_B_]

I'm not doing that at all. A commandment is something that one must act upon regardless of one's thinking or choices. If a man can not choose his actions then there can be no talk of what he ought to do. Man has a volitional form of consciousness, that's a fact, that's an "is". Man has to act in specific ways in order to live. That's a fact, that's an "is". The bridge between "is" and "ought" is values. If a man values life and wants to continue living, then he ought to act in specific ways, seeking those values which his life requires, which values are determined by his nature.

Value: Anything one acts to gain or keep for the purpose of furthering his life.

I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I will clarify further what I meant.

I'm not disputing people make choices, but your belief that there is an objectively logical way to make those choices. There's a survivorship bias at work here. I think my way is objectively logical and the fact that I've survived proves that ... except it doesn't. Logic and intelligence play a role in a serendipitous fashion, but because of the factors we can't account for, or are unaware of, there's also a bit of luck involved such that the supposedly objective logic doesn't work in all cases.

Maybe you can improve on the current state, but that means you are always looking forward to what ought to be, not what is. And the reason for future improvements is hard to establish.