Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

You feign reasoning, but all it really is is a shell game where your arbitrary feelings are dressed up in supposed arguments where the relationship between premises and conclusion is a mystery.

None of this bridges the is-ought gap, it remains either a non-sequitor because the conclusion is unrelated to the premises or a question begging argument because the conclusion is in the premises. It's not reasoning, it's sophistry.

Just as I said. You won't specifically address anything. It's the usual 'Oh no it isn't'. And you never, and I mean never put forward your own argument.

You said I put the moral value into the premises. Well here are the premises that I used to see if it's morally valid for me to hit you:

'There are facts to consider. If I hit you upside the head then you will be hurt and somewhat annoyed. Empathy allows me to establish that.

I use reason to determine what the likely outcome is likely to be. Are you going to buy me a beer or take a swing at me? The decision there is that you'll likely respond in kind. That IS the fact of the matter as I have determined. You being annoyed and me possibly getting a smack in the mouth.'

Can you point out where the moral value is in that? I know you can't, but I want to see how you'll avoid doing so.

 

[Bradskii]

Who knows exactly what reasoning, if any, this poster adheres to. I suspect his positions are not rational but emotional.

You say this. And then...

Rationally, we know that we never choose what we think is bad for us -- we always choose the apparent good.

Exactly. As you said - not what we think is bad, but what we think is good.

For some "feelers", the "apparent good" is equivalent to the "real" good. These "feelers" adhere to the Jeffery Dahmer School of Morality -- if it feels good, do it.

If you think something is good, then don't you adhere to it? I don't mean if it just feels good, because lots of things you and I might like to do we would consider things we shouldn't do.

Don't confuse 'Hey, this feels good' to 'This is the correct thing to do'. It's a straw man. You use it a lot.

Dahmer’s actions defied societal laws and violated fundamental moral principles. But to Dahmer, his acts were "good" because the acts made him "feel" good.

Case in point. Just because it makes you feel good doesn't therefore make it good.

One cannot argue with how another "feels".

No. If you feel something is right then I can't argue 'No, you don't'. But I can argue that your reasons for thinking it right are wrong.

So if you think that hunting animals for fun is acceptable then I can't argue that you don't. You really do think it's OK. But I think it's wrong. So we can argue about the reasons we each came to our decisions.

I thought this was pretty obvious to everyone. Apparently not...

 

[Fervent]

Just as I said. You won't specifically address anything. It's the usual 'Oh no it isn't'. And you never, and I mean never put forward your own argument.

You said I put the moral value into the premises. Well here are the premises that I used to see if it's morally valid for me to hit you:

'There are facts to consider. If I hit you upside the head then you will be hurt and somewhat annoyed. Empathy allows me to establish that.

I use reason to determine what the likely outcome is likely to be. Are you going to buy me a beer or take a swing at me? The decision there is that you'll likely respond in kind. That IS the fact of the matter as I have determined. You being annoyed and me possibly getting a smack in the mouth.'

Can you point out where the moral value is in that? I know you can't, but I want to see how you'll avoid doing so.

Empathy is a feeling, not a moral issue. You are sneaking a moral evaluation into the premises of your "argument" when none need be present. Without inserting that moral evaluation, there is no relationship between the premises and your conclusion. So either you must beg the question by establishing the moral value in the premises themselves, or there is no relationship between premises and conclusion. Your use of "reason" isn't actually reasonable, it's embracing a fallacy and dressing it up as if it were valid.

And my criticism of your position doesn't require me to put forward my own argument. I just have to point out that what you think passes for an argument is structurally invalid.

 

[partinobodycular]

What more rebuttal is needed?

Well, you asserted that @Bradskii's argument was flawed in one of two ways.

Either:

...he packs the conclusion into the premises by inserting the moral value that is supposedly being violated into the premises themselves

That is in fact a reasonable assertion to make, but you need to follow it up by showing us where exactly he did that. Otherwise it's just an assertion.

Or:

...there is no relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

Another reasonable assertion to make, but you failed to follow it up by explaining exactly why the relationship between the premises and the conclusion amounts to a non-sequitur. Thus it's just another assertion.

So you see, it really wasn't a rebuttal at all. Just two unsupported claims, with nary an argument between them.

Now I'm not trying to pick on you, but @Bradskii is right, you can't just assert that his argument is flawed without actually showing us where.

 

[Fervent]

Well, you asserted that @Bradskii's argument was flawed in one of two ways.

Either:



That is in fact a reasonable assertion to make, but you need to follow it up by showing us where exactly he did that. Otherwise it's just an assertion.

It's not simply an assertion, it's a statement of fact because he shifts from a feeling to aa moral value, the connection of the two is a mystery.

Or:



Another reasonable assertion to make, but you failed to follow it up by explaining exactly why the relationship between the premises and the conclusion amounts to a non-sequitur. Thus it's just another assertion.

It may appear an assertion, but it's a statement of fact because he has failed to bridge the gap between things that are, including his particular feelings, and how things ought to be. His empathy may motivate him, but it says nothing about what ought to be the case.

So you see, it really wasn't a rebuttal at all. Just two unsupported claims, with nary an argument between them.

No, it was a rebuttal. His argument only works if we put the moral evaluation into the premises, or the link between the statements of fact and the moral conclusion is a mystery.

Now I'm not trying to pick on you, but @Bradskii is right, you can't just assert that his argument is flawed without actually showing us where.

I've stated the two errors that must be taking place, because either his argument is frontloaded by assigning moral character or the premises do not lead to the conclusion. Either his argument is covertly frontloaded with an unspoken moral premise, or there is no relationship between the state of affairs and the conclusion that is being drawn.

 

[Bradskii]

Empathy is a feeling, not a moral issue.

No, it's not a feeling. It's the ability to understand what others are feeling.

You are sneaking a moral evaluation into the premises of your "argument" when none need be present.

No, I haven't. As I have the ability to empathise I know what you will feel if I smack you in the mouth. I haven't decided if it's acceptable or not at that point. I might enjoy it or I might not. It may be acceptable or maybe not. The morality of the act at that point has not been decided.

So there is no moral evalution snuck into the premises at all.

And my criticism of your position doesn't require me to put forward my own argument. I just have to point out that what you think passes for an argument is structurally invalid.

Well, it's obvious you haven't at this point. Just repeating that it's invalid all the time gets you nowhere. As we keep seeing.

And this is a forum. For exchanging ideas. 'I think you're wrong and this is how I think morality is determined...' should be a requirement for you to put your case.

All we've had so far is the equivalent of a schoolyard 'Shan't. Don't have to!'

Good grief, man. Make an effort to present your case for heaven's sake...

 

[Fervent]

No, it's not a feeling. It's the ability to understand what others are feeling.

It's a feeling, an feeling of emotional connection. But still nothing more than a feeling.

No, I haven't. As I have the ability to empathise I know what you will feel if I smack you in the mouth. I haven't decided if it's acceptable or not at that point. I might enjoy it or I might not. It may be acceptable or maybe not. The morality of the act at that point has not been decided.

So what bridges the gap?

So there is no moral evalution snuck into the premises at all.

Then the premises are not connected to the conclusion.

Well, it's obvious you haven't at this point. Just repeating that it's invalid all the time gets you nowhere. As we keep seeing.

Your lack of understanding of the is-ought problem is not a failing on my end.

And this is a forum. For exchanging ideas. 'I think you're wrong and this is how I think morality is determined...' should be a requirement for you to put your case.

Why do I need to put forward a case? Mine's simple, God determines what is an isn't moral. You think you can establish morality without God, so the only discussion I need is to point out your ersatz morality doesn't measure up.

All we've had so far is the equivalent of a schoolyard 'Shan't. Don't have to!'

I've pointed out the errors, you simply seem to be too dense to understand.

Good grief, man. Make an effort to present your case for heaven's sake...

God said it, case closed.

 

[Bradskii]

I've stated the two errors that must be taking place, because either his argument is frontloaded by assigning moral character or the premises do not lead to the conclusion. Either his argument is covertly frontloaded with an unspoken moral premise, or there is no relationship between the state of affairs and the conclusion that is being drawn.

You don't agree with me so '...the two errors must be taking place...'

I think that sums it. You've just said that you think I'm wrong, so there must be a mistake in my argument somewhere. Followed by an 'It's either this one or that one'.

I can't decide if that sounds desperate or just plaintive.

Be specific. Where is the moral promise in the premises? Quote it.

 

[Fervent]

You don't agree with me so '...the two errors must be taking place...'

Yes, because it depends on covert variables. Either you're smuggling in a prior moral value, thereby begging the question. or there is no clear relationhip between premises and conclusion. Given your latest post, it seems non-sequitor is the more likely error.

I think that sums it. You've just said that you think I'm wrong, so there must be a mistake in my argument somewhere. Followed by an 'It's either this one or that one'.

Nope, again you're not understanding the point. Given your argument there is no clear relationship between premises and conclusion. But whether it is a hidden premise that is begging the question, or simply a non-sequitor depends on your understanding.

I can't decide if that sounds desperate or just plaintive.

"Sounds"...because you don't understand the criticism, or else you do and are simply arguing in bad faith.

Be specific. Where is the moral promise in the premises? Quote it.

There is no explicit moral premise, which is why it is either a non-sequitor or covertly begging the question. As stated, how you got from feeling to moral conclusion is a mystery. So what's the connection? What bridges the gap?

 

[partinobodycular]

You think you can establish morality without God

And why should I buy into your God's version of morality?

 

[Bradskii]

It's a feeling, an feeling of emotional connection. But still nothing more than a feeling.

Yet again, it's not a feeling. Otherwise you'd be able to say what sort of feeling it is. You can't. It's an understanding of how you feel. I know you'll feel pain and some dismay. I might be happy about it or I may not. There is no moral aspect to it. That is to be determined.

So what bridges the gap?

No, we won't go there yet. You disagree with my very first premise. You can't say that the premise somehow contains the moral conclusion and then go on to say 'what bridges the gap' between the premise and the conclusion. It makes absolutely no sense to say that the one contains the other and then ask how you get from one to the other.

Once you agree that there is no moral conclusion in 'I know you'll feel pain and anger' then you can ask where we go from there (despite the fact that I've explained it at least twice).

Why do I need to put forward a case?

Because this is a forum where we exchange ideas. And hey, here comes yours now...

Mine's simple, God determines what is an isn't moral.

We'll get back to that in due course because I don't want any distractions from getting you to agree about the premise and the conclusion as noted above.

 

[o_mlly]

Either he packs the conclusion into the premises by inserting the moral value that is supposedly being violated into the premises themselves, or there is no relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

He also uses a third -- he excludes in his premises the opposing conclusion.

Claim: There are human acts which are in themselves evil and never moral (absolutely or intrinsically evil acts).
However, he fallaciously premises: Actions which are described in a way that already contains the circumstances are invalid.

He confuses the object of the act with its circumstances, circumstances merely surround, stand under the act, ie. where, when, who, etc.

(The word "circumstance" comes from the Middle English term "circumstaunce," which is derived from the Old French "circonstance," and ultimately from the Latin "circumstantia," meaning "standing around." It originally referred to the conditions or facts that surround an event or situation.)

He also does not understand what a human act is. A human act is not merely the physical act of an animal. Unlike animals, humans acts employ reason and free will (actus humanus). The object of a human act is the end to which that act independent of its circumstances tends in itself., That is, the moral value of human acts (whether they are good or evil) depends above all on the conformity of the object or act that is willed with the good of the person according to right reason.

He struggles still but there is no such thing as a "good" rape.

 

[Fervent]

Yet again, it's not a feeling. Otherwise you'd be able to say what sort of feeling it is. You can't. It's an understanding of how you feel. I know you'll feel pain and some dismay. I might be happy about it or I may not. There is no moral aspect to it. That is to be determined.

Nope, empathy is a feeling. It's a feeling of being connected with someone else's emotions, or feeling what they feel.

No, we won't go there yet. You disagree with my very first premise. You can't say that the premise somehow contains the moral conclusion and then go on to say 'what bridges the gap' between the premise and the conclusion. It makes absolutely no sense to say that the one contains the other and then ask how you get from one to the other.

No, I noted there were 2 possibilities. Either you are sneaking in the conclusion in the premises, or you aare preenting a non-sequitor. By denying that you've made the judgment, you seem to be taking the non-sequitor branch. So the question is what bridges the gap?

Once you agree that there is no moral conclusion in 'I know you'll feel pain and anger' then you can ask where we go from there (despite the fact that I've explained it at least twice).

You haven't explained anything, you've presented a fallacious argument and fail to recognize it even when pointed out.

Because this is a forum where we exchange ideas. And hey, here comes yours now...

We'll get back to that in due course because I don't want any distractions from getting you to agree about the premise and the conclusion as noted above.

What's to agree on? You've presented a non-sequitor

 

[Bradskii]

By denying that you've made the judgment, you seem to be taking the non-sequitor branch. So the question is what bridges the gap?

'You seem to be...'? There is no moral judgement in the fact that you'd be physically hurt and angry if I hit you. Obviously. Is it acceptable for me to do so? There's no indication of that. As you are finally acknowledging. Now you want to know what does makes the connection between the facts and whether it's acceptable.

All this nonsense about assuming the conclusion in the premise was just that. Nonsense. Now we can head to a conclusion as to what 'bridges the gap'. So let's start by asking you if you think it's acceptable or not.

 

[Bradskii]

He also uses a third...

Talking of third, what's with the weird third person?

Claim: There are human acts which are in themselves evil and never moral (absolutely or intrinsically evil acts).
However, he fallaciously premises: Actions which are described in a way that already contains the circumstances are invalid.

Ah, yes. It's the 'Torturing Puppies' argument. Something is so obviously bad that morality must be objective. Which is actually nothing more than 'Well, it just is'. So why don't we look at some acts and you can tell me if they're evil (or you can tell Fervent if you'd prefer: 'He asked this question, to which I would reply...').

My kid has been naughty. I send her to her room for an hour. Is that evil?

Let's do another:

My kid has been naughty. I send her to her room for 2 hours. Is that evil?

And another:

My kid has been naughty. I send her to her room for 8 hours. Is that evil?

I think you can see where he's going with this. Sorry...where I am going with this. He wants (drat)...I want to know at what point it would be for it to become objectively evil.

I'll save you some typing time and say that there's obviously nothing evil in sending her to her room for an hour but it's obviously wrong to keep her locked up for a year. So whether it's wrong is (drum roll)...relative to the conditions.

I'll check posts to Fervent later to see how you replied. I'll be asking him a similar question later as well.

 

[Fervent]

'You seem to be...'? There is no moral judgement in the fact that you'd be physically hurt and angry if I hit you. Obviously. Is it acceptable for me to do so? There's no indication of that. As you are finally acknowledging. Now you want to know what does makes the connection between the facts and whether it's acceptable.

Still as dense as ever. If there is no moral judgment, then the premises are not related to the conclusion. The tact you are taking leaves it a mystery what that relationship is meant to be, which means you are going down the path of non-sequitor.

All this nonsense about assuming the conclusion in the premise was just that. Nonsense. Now we can head to a conclusion as to what 'bridges the gap'. So let's start by asking you if you think it's acceptable or not.

No, not at all. It's a fork, the only way to relate the premises with the conclusion is to include the conclusion in the premises. If it's not there, then you simply are presenting a non-sequitor. Which is why I phrased it as an either/or. If you don't include the moral judgment in the premises, there is no relationship between premises and conclusion and you are presenting a non-sequitor. If there is a moral judgment in the premises, you simply beg the question. Either way, the so-called reasoning is fallacious.

 

[partinobodycular]

It's a fork, the only way to relate the premises with the conclusion is to include the conclusion in the premises. If it's not there, then you simply are presenting a non-sequitor.

In my twisted little head I can't help but think that that was what @Bradskii was alluding to all along. That the conclusion as to whether something is immoral or not is never present in the premises no matter how exhaustive they are. This includes the ever vaunted rape scenarios. The use of the word 'rape' may elicit a moral judgment, but that moral judgment isn't intrinsic to the word rape unless one personally defines it as such, which we in western societies almost universally do. But it's simply a clever way of sneaking the conclusion into the premises.

Thus the argument that rape is always immoral falls under your either/or characterization. You either sneak the conclusion into the premises, or it's a non sequitur.

Which inevitably leads to the 'gap' problem, but methinks that @Bradskii has already addressed this problem, you just weren't paying attention.

 

[Fervent]

In my twisted little head I can't help but think that that was what @Bradskii was alluding to all along. That the conclusion as to whether something is immoral or not is never present in the premises no matter how exhaustive they are. This includes the ever vaunted rape scenarios. The use of the word 'rape' may elicit a moral judgment, but that moral judgment isn't intrinsic to the word rape unless one personally defines it as such, which we in western societies almost universally do. But it's simply a clever way of sneaking the conclusion into the premises.

You're off base with this, it's not that the terms are loaded. It's that the only way to get from premises about a state of affairs to a moral evaluation is to include the moral evaluation into the premises themselves.

Thus the argument that rape is always immoral falls under your either/or characterization. You either sneak the conclusion into the premises, or it's a non sequitur.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking absolutes or specific cases.

Which inevitably leads to the 'gap' problem, but methinks that @Bradskii has already addressed this problem, you just weren't paying attention.

He's stated facts and a feeling, neither of which relates the premises to the moral conclusion. He's presented a non-sequitor trying to get an emotional response to do heavy lifting, but emotions don't relate to moral statementss any more than simple facts do. His "reassoning" remains a non-sequitor, unless he begins with a moral value hidden in his premises.

 

[partinobodycular]

He's stated facts and a feeling, neither of which relates the premises to the moral conclusion. He's presented a non-sequitor trying to get an emotional response to do heavy lifting, but emotions don't relate to moral statementss any more than simple facts do. His "reassoning" remains a non-sequitor, unless he begins with a moral value hidden in his premises.

Not wanting to put any more words in @Bradskii's mouth I'll let him handle it from here.

 

[Bradskii]

No, not at all. It's a fork, the only way to relate the premises with the conclusion is to include the conclusion in the premises.

This is logic at quite a basic level. IF x THEN y. The premises lead to the conclusion. If the conclusion is already present in the premises it's a fallacy.

Surely you know this..? From AI:

Petitio principii, also known as "begging the question" or circular reasoning, is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is assumed within the premises. Instead of providing independent evidence, the argument uses the very point it is trying to prove as a justification for that same point. This creates a circular loop where the premise and conclusion essentially say the same thing in different words, making the argument logically invalid because it fails to prove anything new.