Where is the Objective Morality?

[Moral Orel]

Well, you've demonstrated that there are still plenty of dumb people on the internet, as long as you have enough time to fish them out to support bizarre claims. Of course no one manages to give real examples of such a thing, but source #3's attempt is particularly fun:

Premise: No items on this menu are chicken dishes.
Conclusion: Therefore, no chicken dishes are items on this menu.
These are some quality sources you've dug up, Orel!

Can it be tested for validity and soundness? Yep. It's an argument. Arguments don't have to be valid to be an argument... Didn't we already do this? It's like you think things have to be useful to fit. They don't. If we test an argument for validity and find that it isn't valid, it doesn't cease to be an argument. Someone still attempted to give reasons for a conclusion. That's all an argument is.

If you know anything about validity you will know that it is a formal property. This means that it can be assessed without knowing the specific content of an argument. "P, therefore, Q," is not a valid form. Descartes' claim can only be considered a valid argument if we go back to his text and recognize the presupposition of P1. If you truly believe that Descartes is not including P1, then his claim is invalid and unsound, and does not even rise to the level of a proper argument.

All I claimed was that one premise and one conclusion is all that's necessary for an argument. Never said it was "valid" or "proper".

Heck, in #418, #420, and #422 I was already arguing for P3, but you kept drawing us off onto tangents about the strange formalizations you wanted to present, ignoring the substance that was being presented to you. I am the one who preferred Tinker's informal approach. You are the one who felt the need to formalize everything. In informal speech we often omit premises. Again, I think that is the better approach, but if you want to get all formal then you'll have to play by the rules.

You didn't even acknowledge the necessity of the premise D(x)->O(x) until #424. In #418 you said it was true, but said the argument was valid without it. In #420 and #422 you were simply excusing the existence of exceptions.

So yeah, how do you prove D(x) -> O(x) ?

 

[durangodawood]

"Ought" is essentially self referential.

q. What does ought mean, morally?
A. ought is what you should do
q. ok what is should?
A. thats what right to do.
q. ok what it right?
A. its what you ought to do.

It will go round and round like that, never landing on a factual claim.

But once you realize it moral ought and moral should are basically commands rather than truths, it all makes sense.
"Thou shalt not steal"
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart..."

 

[zippy2006]

If you truly believe that Descartes is not including P1, then his claim is invalid and unsound, and does not even rise to the level of a proper argument.

Can it be tested for validity and soundness? Yep. It's an argument. Arguments don't have to be valid to be an argument... Didn't we already do this? It's like you think things have to be useful to fit. They don't. If we test an argument for validity and find that it isn't valid, it doesn't cease to be an argument.

Rather than being an invalid argument, it is no argument at all. Feel free to send that to someone who understands formal logic and ask them if it is valid. They will say, "Valid? It's not even an argument."

All I claimed was that one premise and one conclusion is all that's necessary for an argument. Never said it was "valid" or "proper".

Well, we're left with the fact that no set of two propositions constitutes a valid argument. You think it's because each one is invalid, not because each one is not an argument. I think it's because each one is not an argument. The fact that there are NO valid arguments with two propositions is evidence for the thesis that such things are not arguments at all. If it is logically impossible from the get-go for some thing to be valid due to formal limitations, then the privation cannot be a matter of validity per se, but must rather be a matter of some condition that validity presupposes.

(And now I'm making meta-logical arguments to someone who thinks two propositions can form an argument...!)

Someone still attempted to give reasons for a conclusion. That's all an argument is.

No, they didn't attempt to give reasons, and they didn't even attempt to give a reason. A single proposition can never constitute a reason for another proposition.

You didn't even acknowledge the necessity of the premise D(x)->O(x) until #424. In #418 you said it was true, but said the argument was valid without it. In #420 and #422 you were simply excusing the existence of exceptions.

#418:

And yes, P3 is definitely true, understood correctly. I.e. Ceteris Paribus, I ought to do what I want. It would be absurd to claim that, generally speaking, we ought to do what we do not want, just as it would be absurd to grant P1 & P2 while denying C. We could also phrase it this way: ceteris paribus, I ought to undertake the means necessary to achieve my goals.

So yeah, how do you prove D(x) -> O(x) ?

We can look at P3 after Christmas. Feel free to revisit the posts where I already gave arguments for it.

 

[zippy2006]

"Ought" is essentially self referential.

q. What does ought mean, morally?
A. ought is what you should do
q. ok what is should?
A. thats what right to do.
q. ok what it right?
A. its what you ought to do.

It will go round and round like that, never landing on a factual claim.

But once you realize it moral ought and moral should are basically commands rather than truths, it all makes sense.
"Thou shalt not steal"
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart..."

But you're just ignoring the actual conversation. For pages and pages we've been talking about the example that Tinker gave in post #415.

P1. I want to start the car.
P2. I must push the button in order to start the car.
C. Therefore, I ought to push the button.
​

"Ought" is just a word with a meaning, like any other word. It is altogether false to think that every word must be reducible to other words or concepts.

 

[durangodawood]

But you're just ignoring the actual conversation. For pages and pages we've been talking about the example that Tinker gave in post #415.

P1. I want to start the car.
P2. I must push the button in order to start the car.
C. Therefore, I ought to push the button....​

What youve got there is a functional ought. I specifically asked about its moral sense.

If "you ought not steal" is just a functional message about what helps society tick along nicely, or what will keep you in society's good graces, then OK. But if its trying to invoke something else, anything else, it fails.

"Ought" is just a word with a meaning, like any other word. It is altogether false to think that every word must be reducible to other words or concepts.

Moral ought doesnt lack meaning. I said its meaning is to operate as an imperative. You ought not steal means "we're telling you dont steal". What it lacks is truth value.

 

[zippy2006]

What youve got there is a functional ought. I specifically asked about its moral sense.

If "you ought not steal" is just a message about what helps society tick along nicely, or what will keep you in society's good graces, then OK. But if its trying to invoke something else, anything else, it fails.

Philosophical statements are essentially always conclusions of reasoning processes, and in each case you have to understand the reasoning process in order to understand the justification for the conclusion.

Now, "I ought to push the button," is justified and explained in terms of the premises of the argument given. In post #442 you claimed that there is something amiss about the concept of "ought" itself. Yet my response in #444 proves that the concept is perfectly intelligible in certain circumstances. Therefore your objection must relate to some circumstance or use of the term, not the term itself, in which case an umbrella criticism of the concept 'ought' is not to the point.

When you see the word used in a moral context you should do the same thing you do with any other conclusion: follow the reasoning process to understand the justification for the conclusion. Let's take Kant, for example:

K1. Rational beings ought not contradict themselves.
K2. Those who renege on their promises contradict themselves.
K3. I am a rational being.
K4. Therefore, I ought not renege on my promises.
​

Moral ought doesnt lack meaning. I said its meaning is to operate as an imperative. You ought not steal means "we're telling you dont steal". What it lacks is truth value.

But why does it lack truth value? Why can't an imperative or a normative statement be justified and true, just as the normative statement I presented in #444 is justified and true? Just because you found a single imperative that is, say, a threat, does not mean that all normative statements lack truth value.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, we're left with the fact that no set of two propositions constitutes a valid argument.

False. Here's a valid (though worthless) argument with a single premise:
P1 The conclusion is true.
C This statement is true.

If P1 is true, must C be true? Yep. Valid argument. Hey, it's sound too!

A single proposition can never constitute a reason for another proposition.

Orel: "Why do I have to go to church, Ma?"
Orel's Ma: "Because I said so".

P1 Orel's Ma said to go to church.
C Orel must go to church.

We can look at P3 after Christmas. Feel free to revisit the posts where I already gave arguments for it.

Declaring things absurd doesn't make for a valid argument. Your argument (thus far) boils down to nothing more than, "Well duh, it's obviously true!".

It's absurd to claim that chocolate ice cream is not delicious, therefore chocolate ice cream is delicious.

 

[durangodawood]

...
P1 Orel's Ma said to go to church.
C Orel must go to church.

Is that supposed to be an example of a valid logical argument? (Sorry if Im not following along properly).

 

[zippy2006]

False. Here's a valid (though worthless) argument with a single premise:
P1 The conclusion is true.
C This statement is true.

If P1 is true, must C be true? Yep. Valid argument. Hey, it's sound too!

*Groan*

No, you've just repeated the same assertion twice. The two sentences are identical in meaning.

And no, it's not sound. There's no argument, there's no validity, and there is no content of which truthfulness can be assessed. There is just a vacuous set of words repeated twice. "This statement is true" is not even a proper proposition, because it doesn't say anything.

Orel: "Why do I have to go to church, Ma?"
Orel's Ma: "Because I said so".

P1 Orel's Ma said to go to church.
C Orel must go to church.

This is the argument:

P1. Orel must do whateva momma say
P2. Momma say, "Go 'chuch"
C. Orel must go 'chuch​

The very form of discursive reasoning requires two premises for an inference. There are no inferences that require less than two premises. Again, in informal reasoning we often omit obvious premises, but in truth the arguments require their existence and will fail without them. If the P1 that I gave is not presupposed then C does not follow, and more than that, a proper argument is not even being proposed.

 

[Moral Orel]

Is that supposed to be an example of a valid logical argument? (Sorry if Im not following along properly).

Nope, not a valid argument, just an argument. People argue in invalid ways all the time. Zippy seems to think invalidity makes something not an argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

And no, it's not sound.

It is sound. The conclusion literally cannot be "This statement is false". That's an inherent contradiction, so the only possible true version is "This statement is true".

There's no argument

It is an argument. I gave a conclusion and a reason to believe that conclusion.

there's no validity

It is valid. If P1 is true then C must be true. That's the validity test.

This is the argument:

P1. Orel must do whateva momma say
P2. Momma say, "Go 'chuch"
C. Orel must go 'chuch
The very form of discursive reasoning requires two premises for an inference. There are no inferences that require less than two premises. Again, in informal reasoning we often omit obvious premises, but in truth the arguments require their existence and will fail without them. If the P1 that I gave is not presupposed then C does not follow, and more than that, a proper argument is not even being proposed.

I never said her argument was valid or proper. That's the strawman you keep wanting to introduce.

This red herring is fun and all, but if you're gonna keep posting why wait till after Christmas to make an argument for P3? Just stalling for time?

Remember, that an if/then statement is claiming that if x is true, then y must be true. That's a validity test, bro! It's just an argument with a hidden premise. You're claiming that if D(x) is true, then O(x) is true. You're giving one reason for a conclusion. Yes it's an invalid argument, so make it valid.

 

[zippy2006]

It is sound. The conclusion literally cannot be "This statement is false". That's an inherent contradiction, so the only possible true version is "This statement is true".

There is no reason to believe P1 is true, nor is it possible to evaluate the validity since there is no argument to evaluate (there is no inferential reasoning present). So no, it's not sound. And yes, the mysterious "statement" we are referring to could certainly be false.

It is an argument. I gave a conclusion and a reason to believe that conclusion.

No, you just gave the same claim twice. You twice declared that some undefined statement is true. You didn't do anything more than that. P1 and C are identical.

It is valid. If P1 is true then C must be true. That's the validity test.

Validity requires an inference. "If X, then X" is not an inference.

Remember, that an if/then statement is claiming that if x is true, then y must be true. That's a validity test, bro! It's just an argument with a hidden premise. You're claiming that if D(x) is true, then O(x) is true. You're giving one reason for a conclusion. Yes it's an invalid argument, so make it valid.

P3 is a premise, not an argument. It was defended in three separate posts. At this point it is hard for me to believe that there is any point in trying to explain this to you, given all the silliness you've engaged in for the last few posts, but I will make a minimum effort. First, here are the things I've already said about it:

D(x): I desire x
O(y): I ought to bring about y​

P3. If D(x) then O(x)​

And yes, P3 is definitely true, understood correctly. I.e. Ceteris Paribus, I ought to do what I want. It would be absurd to claim that, generally speaking, we ought to do what we do not want, just as it would be absurd to grant P1 & P2 while denying C. We could also phrase it this way: ceteris paribus, I ought to undertake the means necessary to achieve my goals.

Ceteris paribus, and I never opposed the idea that "sometimes we ought not do whatever we want." These are strawmen and non-sequiturs. Obviously we shouldn't do what we want when all things are not equal.

For example, I shouldn't eat food when it is poisoned, but the fact that some piece of food might be poisoned doesn't undermine the general principle that I should eat food (or that I should eat food if I want to survive).

Right, like in real life. The fact that some piece of food might be poisoned isn't a real argument against the idea that we should eat food. When a mom tells her boy that he needs to eat food if he wants to grow up, she isn't telling him that he needs to eat every piece of food without qualification, even if it is, say, poisoned.

We shouldn't eat poisoned food. It obviously doesn't follow from that that there is parity between eating food and not eating food. It's not like "You should eat food" is false as often as it is true. The general rule holds even though some food shouldn't be eaten. You have a rule and an exception, not two equal and opposed rules.

What is a desire? It is an unresolved stretching forth towards some end. If I desire food then I should eat. The nature of the desire itself explains why it should be fulfilled, qua desire. "Why did you eat? Because I was hungry." "Why do we become hungry? Because we need food." "When should we eat? When we are hungry."

These are all perfectly reasonable responses. Anyone who has experienced hunger understands why the hungry person ought to eat food. Sophists might disagree, but they will eat when they are hungry all the same.

Now your counterargument has been, "But if we ought to fulfill our desires, then we ought to fulfill each and every desire, which is absurd." Or, "If we ought to eat when we are hungry, then we ought to eat each and every time we experience any form of hunger, which is absurd."

My responses above are a response to this counterargument. We don't have to eat food when we are hungry even if the food is poisoned. We don't have to eat when we are hungry if we are obese and our hunger no longer corresponds to physical need. Nevertheless, these are exceptions to the general rule. They don't undermine the intrinsic connection between hunger and food (or between desire and fulfillment). Ceteris paribus, hunger corresponds to eating. Ceteris paribus, desire corresponds to fulfillment.

 

[Moral Orel]

P3 is a premise, not an argument. It was defended in three separate posts. At this point it is hard for me to believe that there is any point in trying to explain this to you, given all the silliness you've engaged in for the last few posts, but I will make a minimum effort. First, here are the things I've already said about it:

First, let's simplify for the sake of my Command key: (D(x) -> O(x)) == (A -> B)

So yeah, you used A -> B as a premise. Let's set up a mock argument as a parallel.

P1. X
P2. Y
C. Z

How might I go about proving your if/then is false, and how might I go about proving this mock argument is invalid. Well, to prove your if/then is false I just need to show a time when B is false, and A is true. And to prove the mock argument is invalid, I just need to show a time when Z is false and X and Y are both true. Huh, what a weird coincidence that those two things so similar! It's almost as though your if/then is a sort of mini-argument. Why, we could even say that the validity test for that mock argument looks like (X & Y) -> Z. How bizarre!

What is a desire? It is an unresolved stretching forth towards some end. If I desire food then I should eat. The nature of the desire itself explains why it should be fulfilled, qua desire. "Why did you eat? Because I was hungry." "Why do we become hungry? Because we need food." "When should we eat? When we are hungry."

These are all perfectly reasonable responses. Anyone who has experienced hunger understands why the hungry person ought to eat food. Sophists might disagree, but they will eat when they are hungry all the same.

Again, declaring that it's reasonable doesn't make for much of an argument. You've got the A -> B, so prove it formally. How does one show a proof for an if/then? If it's reasonable, then you can reason it out instead of making declarations.

 

[zippy2006]

First, let's simplify for the sake of my Command key: (D(x) -> O(x)) == (A -> B)

So yeah, you used A -> B as a premise. Let's set up a mock argument as a parallel.

P1. X
P2. Y
C. Z

How might I go about proving your if/then is false, and how might I go about proving this mock argument is invalid. Well, to prove your if/then is false I just need to show a time when B is false, and A is true. And to prove the mock argument is invalid, I just need to show a time when Z is false and X and Y are both true. Huh, what a weird coincidence that those two things so similar! It's almost as though your if/then is a sort of mini-argument. Why, we could even say that the validity test for that mock argument looks like (X & Y) -> Z. How bizarre!

The argument P1-P2-C can be used to justify or argue for the proposition (X & Y) -> Z, which can also be cast as a premise in a new argument. Again, premises can and must be justified, but that doesn't mean they are arguments. It doesn't follow from any of this that arguments can have a single premise.

Again, declaring that it's reasonable doesn't make for much of an argument.

And your declaration that we should not do things we desire doesn't make it reasonable.

You've got the A -> B, so prove it formally. How does one show a proof for an if/then? If it's reasonable, then you can reason it out instead of making declarations.

Deductive reasoning must end at some point. That's what Tinker was trying to point out. Why should we eat when we are hungry? If you understand what hunger and eating are then you know why. Some native intelligence is required. Deductive reasoning breaks down when you arrive at basic premises (or first principles).

Here's your quiz question:

As a general rule, when we are hungry we should:

A) Eat
B) Not eat
C) Do nothing in particular​

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.

I simply want to know where it is.

If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?

The Holy Spirit speaks to every heart. This is the "system" God uses to direct souls to Hell or not. Either they accept God's Holy Sprit or they don't. There are no other rules.

 

[Moral Orel]

And your declaration that we should not do things we desire doesn't make it reasonable.

I have made no such declaration. If you really think I've made a claim using an "ought" then you haven't been paying attention from the beginning.

 

[durangodawood]

Philosophical statements are essentially always conclusions of reasoning processes, and in each case you have to understand the reasoning process in order to understand the justification for the conclusion.

Now, "I ought to push the button," is justified and explained in terms of the premises of the argument given. In post #442 you claimed that there is something amiss about the concept of "ought" itself. Yet my response in #444 proves that the concept is perfectly intelligible in certain circumstances. Therefore your objection must relate to some circumstance or use of the term, not the term itself, in which case an umbrella criticism of the concept 'ought' is not to the point.

When you see the word used in a moral context you should do the same thing you do with any other conclusion: follow the reasoning process to understand the justification for the conclusion. Let's take Kant, for example:

K1. Rational beings ought not contradict themselves.
K2. Those who renege on their promises contradict themselves.
K3. I am a rational being.
K4. Therefore, I ought not renege on my promises.
​

But why does it lack truth value? Why can't an imperative or a normative statement be justified and true, just as the normative statement I presented in #444 is justified and true? Just because you found a single imperative that is, say, a threat, does not mean that all normative statements lack truth value.

There's still something missing. We've found an instrumental "ought" based on reasoning about what works to promote this or that goal. We've also found an imperative ought that reinforces a sense of duty.

What's missing is the ought that emerges from an action being wrong in itself. Where is "its just wrong" in this picture? People are very attached to it, but I cant find it. Can you?

 

[Astrid]

There's still something missing. We've found an instrumental "ought" based on reasoning about what works to promote this or that goal. We've also found an imperative ought that reinforces a sense of duty.

What's missing is the ought that emerges from an action being wrong in itself. Where is "its just wrong" in this picture? People are very attached to it, but I cant find it. Can you?

Not me

 

[zippy2006]

What's missing is the ought that emerges from an action being wrong in itself. Where is "its just wrong" in this picture? People are very attached to it, but I cant find it. Can you?

If you're insistent on analyzing ungrounded assertions, then I don't know what to tell you. Ungrounded assertions come from dumb people, and the world is full of them. I will tell you the same thing I told Orel. Engage with smart people, not dumb people. In any case, don't found your moral and philosophical positions on things you've heard from dumb people.

 

[durangodawood]

If you're insistent on analyzing ungrounded assertions, then I don't know what to tell you. Ungrounded assertions come from dumb people, and the world is full of them. I will tell you the same thing I told Orel. Engage with smart people, not dumb people. In any case, don't found your moral and philosophical positions on things you've heard from dumb people.

Are you saying the people in these "objective morality" threads who cling to certain things being just-wrong are dumb? Thats what it sounds like.