The philosophy thread general discussion

There can be moral absolutes. Saying that "under circumstance X, killing is wrong" can be an absolute truth. Different people can say, "I think this is true/false", but the actual answer would be true or false. It wouldn't depend on answers people give.

Likewise, I'm a moral objectivist (and often need to state it outright, because people in general seem to assume that being an atheist automatically makes me a moral relativist), but whenever I use that term I'm afraid other people will just mistake it for Rand's system.

This may have some relevance to the question posed later in post 22.

Well, it encourages everyone to be a selfish but fair little shit. And Rand's idea is that that's good enough to make things work out.

In any case, considering that most of the philosophies you find in modern society boil down to some variation of 'the will of God is supreme and I should do whatever he says', or 'nothing really matters so it's okay for me to screw everyone else over', or 'if I just act nice and smoke enough weed, that will magically fix everything', Rand's system is hardly a failure by comparison. That's all I was really trying to say there.

I would argue that actual rationality itself insists that you care about morality. I realize that's a rare viewpoint, but I haven't found any adequate argument to the contrary.

Furthermore, I'm really not sure that the formal definition of 'rationality' used in decision theory is really what we want and intend that word to mean. It seems like decision theorists like to invent prisoners' dilemmas and other ways in which 'rationality' fails, and then sit back and laugh and say 'see, the logic of the Universe fundamentally hates us'. The idea that maybe they were working from the wrong starting point doesn't seem to come up very often.

Join my forum game!

I think a disclaimer "By the way, this has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's Objectivist Movement" would help avoid misunderstanding.

Have you guys read anything by/about Rawles? He had a great idea for a starting point to defining a good society: you have to imagine that you're going to be born into this new society with no prior knowledge at all about what circumstances you'll be born into. Everything is undecided - colour, parents' religion, wealth, health, etc - and you're to design a society where you wouldn't mind being born under these unknown circumstances.

So a society that's good for you, whoever you are, is the goal. If you build into the system a handicap for any group, you have to accept that you might be born into that group.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I'm not sure I see the foundation for this claim. I think "what is is a matter of fact; what should can be a matter of opinion" is a valid statement. But the entire point moral objectivists are trying to argue is that "what should be" can be a matter of fact. Pre-supposing that it can't is a circular argument.

I'd say it's an admission that others can be wrong regarding morality. It's like saying, "You should think 2+2 is 4" - yeah, there are some people who don't think it's 4, but that doesn't mean it's not a fact.

Fascinating. Sounds like something I should read when I get myself some spare time.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:38:34 AM by Vericrat

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

A claim that morals are objective is a claim of fact. If somebody wants to claim that objective morals exist independently of thought or subjective opinion, then the burden is on them to provide facts and evidence to back that up. Have these objective morals been empirically observed or discovered through scientific experiment? If so, I'd like to see that.

I'm familiar with Rawls. I found his ideology to be very well-rounded and compelling.

edited 30th Jan '13 7:45:46 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I understand that. My point wasn't, "They've met their burden of proof." My point was, they were saying, "Morals are objective," and you were saying, "No, any "should" statement (like morals) is subjective because "should" statements are subjective." (At least that's what I got out of what you were saying - I could be wrong.) Which is circular.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

The word "should" has a different meaning depending on context. "This ball should fall if I drop it" means something different than "A person should always tell the truth." In the first case, we know the ball should fall because we know about gravity. In the second case, you're expressing either what is desirable or a moral obligation. I was talking about "should" statements in the sense of a moral obligation or desirable outcome.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

I used 'should' because I couldn't figure out another word that would fit. When I said some things should be morally objective, I meant stuff like coveting, slander, murder, that sort of thing.

And by coveting, I don't mean jealousy. Jealousy is what you get when you see someone's TV and you want to buy a better one. Covetousness is when you see someone's TV and you steal it because you want that specific TV.

Not Three Laws compliant.

So are you saying that certain moral laws are objective, or that you want them to be objective? The first would require proof, the second makes no sense. Objective laws are true whether we want them to be or not. Please be more specific about what you're claiming.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

The examples Zendervai gave all fall into the category of "good rules to follow if you want a stable society". You know, don't murder each other or nick everyone's stuff. And I guess that the logic those rules are based on would hold in most, if not all, societies.

They're just common sense guidelines based on the idea that if everyone lists all the things they don't want people to do to them, you can come to some sort of agreement to not do those things to each other for the good of the group.

It's not really morality, it's just pragmatism.

Indeed. Please try to tell me what constitutes a universal, absolute moral code. Moral codes are artificial, as in a concept of man and society than nature. You can say some sets of morals/ethics are superior to others, perhaps (by mapping out the consequences to a society if they are used), but you can't claim a human concept is universally true. The mere existence of sociopaths, and people who honestly don't follow certain moral codes proves that incorrect.

Which is why Objectivism (not the adulterated Rand kind) when applied to human morality and ethics is... bunk. Absolutes don't work when it comes to groups of people.

There could well be absolute rules to behaviour buried underneath the elaborate construction that goes on around them: but, not when it comes to which moral is "true" to follow. When it comes to behaviour, humans are the uncertainty principle made manifest, regardless of how we tend to like patterns.

About the best you can manage is "what works where you are, when you are and with the people you're with".

edited 30th Jan '13 9:01:09 AM by Euodiachloris

With the addendum that some things are pretty good ideas regardless of circumstance.

Sure, things like "no murder" and "no stealing" are good ideas, but not because they're good morals in themselves, but because they're agreed to have merit and occupy a high priority on a lot of people's values.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

(posted in wrong place. will say something later)

edited 30th Jan '13 1:03:34 PM by Trivialis

Thread Hop, I don't think anyone talked about the libertarian yet, but I had a question: my philosophy teacher chalked up their philosophy to "liberty means the right to consume".

... Is that right? Is that all there is to the libertarian's philosophy? To be free, you need all your money to consume, thus the government should let you alone and not touch your wealth because you need to express your liberty by buying stuff?

That's something alright. I'm not sure what it is, but it's something alright.

I'm familiar with that argument, yes.

As far as I can tell it's not a very good argument to use in real life, because the human tendency to gamble kind of ruins the point.

I don't like the usage of the term 'absolute' when it comes to morality. It comes with a strong connotation that there are specific actions which are forbidden. The reality is that it's not about what you do, but what you cause, and seemingly the exact same action can be good or evil depending on the circumstances.

Just to clear something up: My understanding of the terms 'morality' and 'ethics' is that the former is what is actually right and wrong (whether or not you happen to believe that's meaningful), while the latter is what people believe is right and wrong. Essentially, morality is the facts about normativity, whereas ethics is the beliefs about normativity. In that case, talking about 'human morality' doesn't make any sense because it's not something defined by humans.

If you'd like to use different definitions, then go right ahead. One version I've heard is that morality regards what you do about yourself, and ethics regards what you do about other people. I think that distinction is silly and that the distinction I make between the objective and the subjective is far more meaningful and pertinent, but maybe that's just me.

Join my forum game!

@Objectivity

It simply means that the answer to an objective truth is either yes or no. It doesn't necessarily point to which one. But what it does say is that it can't be "maybe yes in this person's view, maybe no in that person's view". It's fixed.

That's what Vericrat is saying here. An absolute, including a moral absolute, has a true position. We might think that this position leans one way or another, but the position exists.

I would be careful in applying scientific experiments in this discussion. Such science is a human-based method that depends on people "seeing" it with their eyes. It helps humans discover what's out there, but it doesn't mean that what we can't see right now can't be true. That's objectivity; it's view-invariant. Like Lawyerdude said, objective truths are true whether or not one wants it that way. They're also true whether or not one sees or realizes that it is.

Let's look at The Other Wiki.

Sound nice and all. However, if taken to it's logical conclusion, you do have what is basically anarchy ran by whoever has the power to control everyone else.

Since without someone to enforce rules regarding freedom, you are forced to rely on everyone agreeing to not, say, murder whoever they disagree with.

I can think of objective truths, such as 2+2 = 4, but I fail to see how a Moral could claim this status.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:33:57 PM by Matues

Let's say... killing is wrong.

Now you can say "no it's not". If we agree that we know both of us can't be right (even if we don't know for sure which one is wrong), there's an objective truth out there.

The problem with saying something like 2+2+4 is it's a self-defining statement. The idea of "2" object, or "2" as a number doesn't really have much meaning without putting in a context. To describe 2+2+4, or even with the concept of math (in a void, without relying on human perception) you end up with tautologies.

Of course, we treat 2+2=4 as true, because we get the most useful and consistent view of reality (that allows up as species to function best) if we treat it as true. Any further nit-pickery is fairly stupid.

That assumes that there's such a concept as "wrong." You can argue that killing is, in general, bad for a society, but without a measurable concept of "wrong" you can't claim it's an objective truth.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:40:28 PM by DrTentacles

I fail to see the jump between stating something, then assuming that there must be an objective solution.

If I say <insert music genre> is the best, and you disagree, that doesn't mean that there is some objectively best musical genre.

My apologies.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:43:12 PM by Matues

Topic drift towards math here, but I would argue 2 has an inherent meaning. It's a state of having something twice. Now when you put it in a context, you're describing that something has that state. It's similar to how an adjective is a condition, and you can use the adjective to describe a noun.

I very much think truth is objective and absolute. The only time a statement is relative is if the words themselves are not clearly specified; as you said, "this genre is the best" would be relative because what does best mean?

And that's why philosophers have proposed their ideas on what is objectively right or wrong. Kant, who I mentioned before, is interesting because of his formulations on the concepts.

edited 30th Jan '13 2:45:09 PM by Trivialis

Hey, maybe someone can explain something to me. I'm new to philosophy, but it's something I'm very interested in, and I've gotten a little confused on something. Anyway, my question is: What is the difference between moral relativism and moral nihilism? Thanks for any help.

boop