Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Steve H on July 23, 2022, 08:00:37 AM
-
This came up on the 'The next PM' thread.
I think it is. In broad outline (not in detail), and with some notable but temporary exceptions, all societies have agreed on the basics: random violence, theft, deceit, cruelty, parasitism, etc. are wrong; kindness, peaceableness, honesty, etc. are right. That broad agreement argues for its objective nature. A society which practised Ayn Rand's ethics - praising selfishness and condemning altruism - would not survive long; nor would a society that praised theft and condemned honesty. It is probably, therefore, a matter of natuurall selection.
The ethical system which makes most sense is rule-utilitarianism: regarding those acts as good which tend to maximise happiness. All the hypothetical scenarios I've ever read attempting to disprove it can be condemned on specifically rule-utilitarian grounds:if we were all obliged to sacrifice our lives to save two otherlives of greater societal value than ours by donating our kidneys, we would all be living in fear. (Note that this only works with rule-utilitarianism, not the act version.
If moraliy is subjective, you can have no objection to my beating you up until you hand over your money, or raping your wife. The fact that some societies have unnexessary hang-ups, such as Western society's about homosexual acts, does not argue against the objectivity of basic moral principles.
As for fairness, which was mentioned specifically, that is certainly objective, because it's simple maths. If I cut myself a bigger slice of cake than anyone else, that's unfair. There may be types of unfairness we are prepared to tolerate, but that doesn't alter the fact.
-
No: it's subjective, being essentially what people think.
That there can be instances where there is a consensus of subjective opinion in particular circumstances, albeit these vary in line with social and cultural factors, so that the moral zeitgeist is both variable at any point in time and also changes over time, is at best axiomatic and not objective.
There seem to be no objective moral principles floating around waiting to be adopted - so far as I can see all moral statements are the subjective opinions of people and that there can be general agreement among a subset of people doesn't mean what those people agree on is 'objective' (as in being independent of their subjective opinion).
-
If moraliy is subjective, you can have no objection to my beating you up until you hand over your money, or raping your wife.
What you say here reads like a classic argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.
-
Steve
I posted this on the Next PM thread but makes more sense to discuss it here:
In terms of taxation and public spending? I don't see how you can argue or provide evidence of an objective morality or objective fairness. Morality and perceptions of fairness have an emotional component and people's emotions have a genetic component, which influences how they are predisposed to react.
“Emotions are not only about how feel about the world, but how our brains influence our perception of it. As our genes influence how we literally see the positive and negative aspects of our world more clearly, we may come to believe the world has more rewards or threats."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201505/how-do-your-genes-influence-levels-emotional-sensitivity
For example, some people are predisposed to feel more discomfort/ alarm/ unsafe when contemplating change or uncertainty and prefer tradition and hierarchy and order and certainty, whereas others are predisposed to feeling suffocated by tradition, hierarchy and order and feel energised at the prospect of change or uncertainty. This then affects how they feel about issues such as taxation, inflation, spending, saving, wealth distribution, career choices, job security, education, wages, innovation, entrepreneurship, their appetite for risk, tax planning etc
When faced with the risk that a tax-planning scheme that seemingly complies with tax law but also allows tax savings that might in the future be challenged/ disallowed by HMRC, some people are willing to take the risk and utilise the scheme and see what happens and some people prefer certainty and decide not to use that tax-planning scheme. Knowing that there are possibilities of appeal and testing the law to ascertain what judges interpret as Parliament's intention when drafting the tax legislation, some people consider it is worth pursuing. Until HMRC challenge a scheme and it goes through the courts / tribunals it is not always clear whether Parliament intended the tax saving to be used or not - as there might be a commercial reason to allow tax savings in that particular way.
Some people are more focused on enterprise and economy and some people are more focused on giving all their money away to help others. The amount of compassion someone feels and their subsequent actions may be linked to their genes and how pre-disposed they are to feel fear or perceive a threat.
These polymorphisms interacted with perceived threat to predict engagement in volunteer work or charitable activities and commitment to civic duty. Specifically, greater perceived threat predicted engagement in fewer charitable activities for individuals with A/A and A/G genotypes of OXTR rs53576, but not for G/G individuals. Similarly, greater perceived threat predicted lower commitment to civic duty for individuals with one or two short alleles for AVPR1a rs1, but not for individuals with only long alleles. Oxytocin, vasopressin, and their receptor genes may significantly influence prosocial behavior and may lie at the core of the caregiving behavioral system. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22457427/
So how would you determine objectively the right level of threat perception?
-
As for fairness, which was mentioned specifically, that is certainly objective, because it's simple maths. If I cut myself a bigger slice of cake than anyone else, that's unfair. There may be types of unfairness we are prepared to tolerate, but that doesn't alter the fact.
If you put in more effort towards a particular enterprise in the expectation of greater reward, why would it be unfair to cut yourself a bigger slice of the cake than someone who has put in less effort towards that enterprise?
-
What you say here reads like a classic argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.
No, it doesn't.The consequentialist fallacy is assume that if a belief leads to good ends,it must be true, and if to bad ends it must be false, eg God must exist, because otherwise we have no hope. That, however, is not what I was saying, which is that people in fact act as though morality is oobjective.
-
If you put in more effort towards a particular enterprise in the expectation of greater reward, why would it be unfair to cut yourself a bigger slice of the cake than someone who has put in less effort towards that enterprise?
It wouldn't - it would be fair - but I didn't say anything about effort or reward. Anyway, you are still regarding fairness as right, and unfairness as wrong.
-
No, it doesn't.The consequentialist fallacy is assume that if a belief leads to good ends,it must be true, and if to bad ends it must be false, eg God must exist, because otherwise we have no hope. That, however, is not what I was saying, which is that people in fact act as though morality is oobjective.
They may act as if morality is objective but that doesn't make it objective: at best it makes their opinion of what is moral or immoral axiomatic.
You were arguing that:
If P ("if morality is subjective") then Q (" you can have no objection to my beating you up until you hand over your money, or raping your wife.")
Q is undesirable.
Therefore P is false.
So here you are claiming morality cannot be subjective since otherwise the consequences would be undesirable, therefore morality must be objective and not subjective - and that seems like the classic negative form of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy if your conclusion that morality isn't subjective, and is therefore objective, rests on this argument alone.
-
If you put in more effort towards a particular enterprise in the expectation of greater reward, why would it be unfair to cut yourself a bigger slice of the cake than someone who has put in less effort towards that enterprise?
I suspect that 'effort' is a difficult term to measure in the context of morality e.g. Mr Putin, no doubt, puts a great deal of effort into his war enterprise as did the soldier on the front line who came back with his legs blown off. Shouldn't they at least be given an equal slice of the cake? 'Morality' is another word that needs clarifying. It's source is a Latin word meaning 'habit'. If seen in this context it could mean 'social habit' which can arise from genetics but also from conditioning processes imposed or suggested by those who control the cutting of cake slices, something religious hierarchies and political dictatorships have become expert at.
-
I suspect that 'effort' is a difficult term to measure in the context of morality e.g. Mr Putin, no doubt, puts a great deal of effort into his war enterprise as did the soldier on the front line who came back with his legs blown off. Shouldn't they at least be given an equal slice of the cake?
Good point - yes 'effort' doesn't adequately cover the criteria that might go into a moral choice or judgement. Though maybe Putin would take his effort into consideration when deciding how much of Ukraine he wants - to the victor the spoils.
'Morality' is another word that needs clarifying. It's source is a Latin word meaning 'habit'. If seen in this context it could mean 'social habit' which can arise from genetics but also from conditioning processes imposed or suggested by those who control the cutting of cake slices, something religious hierarchies and political dictatorships have become expert at.
Agreed. The people in control often would prefer not to give up that control or to let others have equal control or equal say, as they are convinced that they are morally right or superior or they may just feel justified or entitled to a bigger slice of the cake. Also, once you have got used to having the bigger slice, you can become very fearful of losing some of your portion of cake, and you may act/ vote based on that fear.
-
This came up on the 'The next PM' thread.
I think it is. In broad outline (not in detail), and with some notable but temporary exceptions, all societies have agreed on the basics: random violence, theft, deceit, cruelty, parasitism, etc. are wrong; kindness, peaceableness, honesty, etc. are right. That broad agreement argues for its objective nature. A society which practised Ayn Rand's ethics - praising selfishness and condemning altruism - would not survive long; nor would a society that praised theft and condemned honesty. It is probably, therefore, a matter of natuurall selection.
The ethical system which makes most sense is rule-utilitarianism: regarding those acts as good which tend to maximise happiness. All the hypothetical scenarios I've ever read attempting to disprove it can be condemned on specifically rule-utilitarian grounds:if we were all obliged to sacrifice our lives to save two otherlives of greater societal value than ours by donating our kidneys, we would all be living in fear. (Note that this only works with rule-utilitarianism, not the act version.
If moraliy is subjective, you can have no objection to my beating you up until you hand over your money, or raping your wife. The fact that some societies have unnexessary hang-ups, such as Western society's about homosexual acts, does not argue against the objectivity of basic moral principles.
As for fairness, which was mentioned specifically, that is certainly objective, because it's simple maths. If I cut myself a bigger slice of cake than anyone else, that's unfair. There may be types of unfairness we are prepared to tolerate, but that doesn't alter the fact.
I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival and flourishing. However I see this as not particularly different to any other 'potentials' such as the ability to see, the ability to breed, the ability to exhibit selfishness and a myriad of other characteristics of living things. I do not see these 'potentials' as having any outside existence in their own right and, therefore, do not regard them as objective in the sense of having an existence separate from the creatures which exhibit these characteristics.
I have a morality which I try to adhere to. For me, this is probably driven by such traits as empathy and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others. Culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach superimpose upon those feelings, so that I attempt to give the most constructive outcome which would satisfy my original motivations. Thus my sense of moral wrongness/rightness depends upon my own unique characteristics wedded to the overall evolutionary group characteristics.
I generally think and feel that I am correct in my moral thoughts and decisions, because that is the way in which I have evolved to think and feel. That is not to say that I can't make immoral decisions, but it would be odd, indeed, if I went around thinking that my moral thoughts and decisions were inherently wrong. However, if it was demonstrated to me that some particular moral thought or action of mine was wrong, then I would try to analyse why it might be wrong, and if then I was convinced of this wrongness, I would try to adjust accordingly.
My approach therefore is almost certainly one that leans towards the subjective rather than the objective.
-
There seem to be no objective moral principles floating around waiting to be adopted
The principle of least harm.
Was the Atlantic slave trade objectively bad or is it only bad because of our current moral zeitgeist?
-
The principle of least harm.
Was the Atlantic slave trade objectively bad or is it only bad because of our current moral zeitgeist?
In what sense is that objective?
-
The principle of least harm.
Was the Atlantic slave trade objectively bad or is it only bad because of our current moral zeitgeist?
The latter: because any notion of 'good' or 'bad' is subjective opinion.
That the moral zeitgeist involves consensus doesn't turn that consensus into objective facts even where almost all people would agree with the consensus. That they may regard the consensus as being unquestionable or self-evident makes it axiomatic and not objective.
-
This came up on the 'The next PM' thread.
I think it is. In broad outline (not in detail), and with some notable but temporary exceptions, all societies have agreed on the basics: random violence, theft, deceit, cruelty, parasitism, etc. are wrong; kindness, peaceableness, honesty, etc. are right. That broad agreement argues for its objective nature. A society which practised Ayn Rand's ethics - praising selfishness and condemning altruism - would not survive long; nor would a society that praised theft and condemned honesty. It is probably, therefore, a matter of natuurall selection.
You've sort of highlighted the flaw in your own argument, here - those traits that are widely extoled are effective at creating stable cultures, but that doesn't intrinsically make them good. You'd need to establish a basis for presuming that stable cultures were good in order for the building blocks to 'inherit' that goodness.
Taking this idea on, for me, shows why morality is subjective: if you were to look at a variety of Asian culture, both current and historical, and you find a tendency to espouse the idea that it's 'good' to subsume individual desires for the greater good of the community, which you can pit against a 'Western' ideal of individual freedom and liberty being the building blocks of a disparate but 'good' society. Two mutually exclusive concepts with a well-founded history of being depicted as 'good' - neither of those precludes a stable society, intrinsically, and so they have both continued and both established themselves, whilst the other traits that you mention appear to be more critical and appear in both. Presumably traits which are detrimental to stable cultures have been weeded out over time in a sort of 'social evolution'.
O.
-
In what sense is that objective?
The most moral action is the one that does the least harm. Admittedly, it is pretty hard to measure, but, in principle, it provides an objective framework for morality.
Would you like to comment on my question about the Atlantic slave trade?
-
The latter: because any notion of 'good' or 'bad' is subjective opinion.
So why do we go round cancelling slave traders?
-
So why do we go round cancelling slave traders?
Because the moral zeitgeist nowadays, which is a subjective consensus of opinion, is that slavery is 'bad': as in being socially divisive in various ways.
-
The most moral action is the one that does the least harm. Admittedly, it is pretty hard to measure, but, in principle, it provides an objective framework for morality.
Would you like to comment on my question about the Atlantic slave trade?
You've assumed an axiom subjectively, and then said you can judge things against that axiom objectively. I would agree but it doesn't change that the axiom, and therefore everything following is subjective.
Individual cases such as the slavery one are irrelevant because of it being based on a subjective assumption. If I change the axiom subjectively to things that benefit me, slavery might well be judged as morally neutral.
-
In fact, whether there is any such thing as 'objective reality' itself, can be questioned. Even if there is any objective reality independent of our observation and sensory processing...we will never know what it is.
-
In fact, whether there is any such thing as 'objective reality' itself, can be questioned. Even if there is any objective reality independent of our observation and sensory processing...we will never know what it is.
Not sure these kinds of 'reality is just an illusion' arguments really cut any ice.
Many of the instruments we use to indicate phenomena aren't really based on our sensory perception at all (although we might have designed them) so it is hard to argue that the manifestation of those phenomena only exist if we are measuring them.
And on that latter point, measurements from deep space are a great example. We are 'observing' things that actually occurred billions of years ago. Can we really credibly claim that they only manifest when we observe them, given that they actually manifested billions of years before humans even existed, let alone whether or not we have the technology to observe them.
-
In fact, whether there is any such thing as 'objective reality' itself, can be questioned. Even if there is any objective reality independent of our observation and sensory processing...we will never know what it is.
We have to assume there is. Otherwise you would be checking the ground was still there every time you took a step!
-
We have to assume there is. Otherwise you would be checking the ground was still there every time you took a step!
I think the argument is more that what be consider 'reality' is merely some kind of complex VR created by our own consciousness. The 'deep space' issue is relevant as it becomes must more difficult to argue that something we can measure now that actually happened billions of years before we existed was actually generated by our own consiousness (which didn't exist at that time).
-
Because the moral zeitgeist nowadays, which is a subjective consensus of opinion, is that slavery is 'bad': as in being socially divisive in various ways.
Doesn't moral Zeitgeist just boil down to "It's bad because they say it's bad.
I
You need to establish that socially divisive is bad rather than just socially divisive.
-
Doesn't moral Zeitgeist just boil down to "It's bad because they say it's bad.
I
You need to establish that socially divisive is bad rather than just socially divisive.
No, that's for those who think morality is objective. So, on you go...
-
Doesn't moral Zeitgeist just boil down to "It's bad because they say it's bad.
I
You need to establish that socially divisive is bad rather than just socially divisive.
Notions of what is 'good' or 'bad' are subjective opinions, where the zeitgeist is a consensus that may well change: a strong social consensus is still an aggregation of opinion, even when expressed as axioms that seem self evident.
So I'd say that 'bad' was a synonym for 'socially divisive'; if theft solely for personal gain wasn't regarded as being socially divisive (or 'bad') then it would be the case that if the loss of personal property due to theft solely for personal gain was somehow now acceptable what then what would be the incentive be to work and use the resources from that work to provide for, say, our children (provided that said work isn't in the insurance industry, which would simply disappear)?
So, generally speaking, we tend to prosecute those who steal solely for personal gain, and the subjective consensus, that is the current moral zeitgeist, supports this approach.
-
Notions of what is 'good' or 'bad' are subjective opinions, where the zeitgeist is a consensus that may well change: a strong social consensus is still an aggregation of opinion, even when expressed as axioms that seem self evident.
I agree.
So I'd say that that 'bad' was a synonym for 'socially divisive'; if theft solely for personal gain wasn't regarded as being socially divisive (or 'bad') then it would be the case that if the loss of personal property due to theft solely for personal gain was somehow now acceptable what then what would be the incentive be to work and use the resources from that work to provide for, say, our children (provided that said work isn't in the insurance industry, which would simply disappear)?
So, generally speaking, we tend to prosecute those who steal solely for personal gain, and the subjective consensus, that is the current moral zeitgeist, supports this approach.
Indeed - and it is perfectly possible to think of an alternative society that is structured around shared belongings where the notion of stealing would be anathema - in that it was an accepted 'good' that people shared and therefore it was perfectly acceptable to take an item because you had a need for it. And the same applied to others. Indeed in this social culture the moral 'bad' would probably be the notion of 'belongings' themselves, i.e. considering that an item was owned by you as an individual rather than collectively available to the society.
Would that society be intrinsically morally better or worse than ours - I'm not sure we could say - it would certainly be different, but surely the key would be societal acceptance of that different approach to 'property'.
-
Not sure these kinds of 'reality is just an illusion' arguments really cut any ice.
Many of the instruments we use to indicate phenomena aren't really based on our sensory perception at all (although we might have designed them) so it is hard to argue that the manifestation of those phenomena only exist if we are measuring them.
And on that latter point, measurements from deep space are a great example. We are 'observing' things that actually occurred billions of years ago. Can we really credibly claim that they only manifest when we observe them, given that they actually manifested billions of years before humans even existed, let alone whether or not we have the technology to observe them.
This is not merely to do with QM issues about the need for observation.
Taken simply as a fact...our perception, cognition and understanding is based entirely on our senses, brain and other processes. Our classical reality is based entirely on this. These processes have evolved under specific conditions for specific purposes. Without these processes what exactly objective reality will be is impossible to even comprehend.
Will it be strings and multiple dimensions and fields interacting with one another or what exactly?
Sorry I am digressing from the morality discussion....but objective morality would be a part of objective reality.
-
Taken simply as a fact...our perception, cognition and understanding is based entirely on our senses, brain and other processes.
I don't think that is true - I used the example of observation of deep space events. This isn't a person looking through a telescope, but sophisticated instrumentation taking readings which are then transferred to computational analytical equipment, and likely reproduced for storage and backup. All this occurs without direct involvement of human senses at all.
Our classical reality is based entirely on this. These processes have evolved under specific conditions for specific purposes. Without these processes what exactly objective reality will be is impossible to even comprehend.
But what about my example. So via analytical instrumentation we detect light etc from a massively distant source. Although we are detecting (observing) this now, the actual event happened billions of years ago, it is just that it takes so long for the light or other waves etc to travel to earth and they happen to pass by us at this point. So the actual event we are observing occurred way, way before humans evolved, in some cases before our solar system even existed. How is that consistent with your assertion, given that the event occurred before these human faculties evolved and there would have been no guarantee (indeed it would be an incredibly low probability) that (looking forward from the point of the event) that these faculties would even evolve at the right time and in the right place for the light etc to happen to be passing by at the right time to be detected.
Are you some how claiming that the event that occurred billions of years ago has no objective reality but only exists in a subjective sense due to human existence. That seems bonkers as it would require after-the-event determination of whether the event actually existed or not. In other words you'd have to argue that an event that occurred billions of years ago wouldn't have occurred if humans had failed to evolve in the right time and place billions of years later. Total non-sense.
-
The latter: because any notion of 'good' or 'bad' is subjective opinion.
Indeed, notions of good or bad are subjective opinion, but does that preclude slavery also being objectively bad?
-
Notions of what is 'good' or 'bad' are subjective opinions, where the zeitgeist is a consensus that may well change: a strong social consensus is still an aggregation of opinion, even when expressed as axioms that seem self evident.
So I'd say that 'bad' was a synonym for 'socially divisive'; if theft solely for personal gain wasn't regarded as being socially divisive (or 'bad') then it would be the case that if the loss of personal property due to theft solely for personal gain was somehow now acceptable what then what would be the incentive be to work and use the resources from that work to provide for, say, our children (provided that said work isn't in the insurance industry, which would simply disappear)?
So, generally speaking, we tend to prosecute those who steal solely for personal gain, and the subjective consensus, that is the current moral zeitgeist, supports this approach.
Blabber which leaves the important questions unanswered.
We know that people’s opinions of what is good and bad is subjective but if definitions of Good and bad are equally vague and subjective the. the very words are meaningless and so concensus is meaningless.
-
Blabber which leaves the important questions unanswered.
We know that people’s opinions of what is good and bad is subjective but if definitions of Good and bad are equally vague and subjective the. the very words are meaningless and so concensus is meaningless.
How do you move beyond people's opinions?
-
I don't think that is true - I used the example of observation of deep space events. This isn't a person looking through a telescope, but sophisticated instrumentation taking readings which are then transferred to computational analytical equipment, and likely reproduced for storage and backup. All this occurs without direct involvement of human senses at all.
But what about my example. So via analytical instrumentation we detect light etc from a massively distant source. Although we are detecting (observing) this now, the actual event happened billions of years ago, it is just that it takes so long for the light or other waves etc to travel to earth and they happen to pass by us at this point. So the actual event we are observing occurred way, way before humans evolved, in some cases before our solar system even existed. How is that consistent with your assertion, given that the event occurred before these human faculties evolved and there would have been no guarantee (indeed it would be an incredibly low probability) that (looking forward from the point of the event) that these faculties would even evolve at the right time and in the right place for the light etc to happen to be passing by at the right time to be detected.
Are you some how claiming that the event that occurred billions of years ago has no objective reality but only exists in a subjective sense due to human existence. That seems bonkers as it would require after-the-event determination of whether the event actually existed or not. In other words you'd have to argue that an event that occurred billions of years ago wouldn't have occurred if humans had failed to evolve in the right time and place billions of years later. Total non-sense.
You are missing the point. You are starting off with the same assumption that....our consciousness is an emergent property of our biological development and therefore any event preceding the arising of our consciousness has to necessarily be independent of our consciousness. OK.
Think of the entire experience of the world that we are having as just a VR creation. A VR world does not exist objectively except as pixels or whatever....and yet we experience it vividly. It is all in our mind and does not exist objectively. We can all nevertheless experience the same VR world and even interact with each other using different terminals.
It is similar with our world.
Once our sensory and brain processing (the headset) is removed....the 'real' world will disappear. What remains or rather what external reality will 'look' like and 'feel' like independent of our human perception we cannot even comprehend. Just think about it.
-
You are missing the point.
No I'm not - I am focussing on reality and evidence not on unevidenced assertion.
You are starting off with the same assumption that....our consciousness is an emergent property of our biological development and therefore any event preceding the arising of our consciousness has to necessarily be independent of our consciousness. OK.
Yup, that's right. Why? Because we have ample evidence that consciousness is linked to neurophysiological complexity that has arisen via evolution. We have no evidence that our consciousness can, or does, exist beyond the confines of our individual neurophysiology.
Think of the entire experience of the world that we are having as just a VR creation. A VR world does not exist objectively except as pixels or whatever....and yet we experience it vividly. It is all in our mind and does not exist objectively. We can all nevertheless experience the same VR world and even interact with each other using different terminals.
So you are arguing that we are all existing in a VR world - sure, I know the thought experiments, but then you need some kind of evidence to support that notion, which of course you don't have. Merely positing a theoretically plausible, but unevidenced and highly unlikely explanation doesn't mean that it should be treated as somehow 'equal' to an explanation that is supported by massive amounts of evidence.
It is similar with our world.
Once our sensory and brain processing (the headset) is removed....the 'real' world will disappear. What remains or rather what external reality will 'look' like and 'feel' like independent of our human perception we cannot even comprehend. Just think about it.
Oh dear - on to the woo Sriram. Just because you write down some unevidenced assertion doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it equivalent to an alternative argument that is based on evidence.
So if you want to assert that we are living in some kind of VR-equivalent world then over to you to provide evidence for this. And does this mean that there is just a single person and everything else is VR - in which case that single person must be me (but you would probably conclude that this single person must be you). But if there is more than one person in this VR world then it isn't really VR, is it Sriram as we would presumably both exist and would presumably both be interacting with each other fundamentally in the real world not the VR world even if the medium for that interaction was VR.
-
A VR world does not exist objectively except as pixels or whatever....and yet we experience it vividly. It is all in our mind and does not exist objectively.
But our eyes (for example) are just like that - they have cells which are able to receive photons of light and convert them into electrical signals that are processes in our brains to produce an image, something we 'see'. But that doesn't mean that what we are 'seeing' does not objectively exist. And if we are able to detect this thing (that we are seeing) in a whole range of other ways, both via our senses or via objective measurement, then why would we not consider that this thing actually exists in an objective sense, regardless of whether we are here to see, touch, smell etc it.
-
No I'm not - I am focussing on reality and evidence not on unevidenced assertion.
Yup, that's right. Why? Because we have ample evidence that consciousness is linked to neurophysiological complexity that has arisen via evolution. We have no evidence that our consciousness can, or does, exist beyond the confines of our individual neurophysiology.
So you are arguing that we are all existing in a VR world - sure, I know the thought experiments, but then you need some kind of evidence to support that notion, which of course you don't have. Merely positing a theoretically plausible, but unevidenced and highly unlikely explanation doesn't mean that it should be treated as somehow 'equal' to an explanation that is supported by massive amounts of evidence.
Oh dear - on to the woo Sriram. Just because you write down some unevidenced assertion doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it equivalent to an alternative argument that is based on evidence.
So if you want to assert that we are living in some kind of VR-equivalent world then over to you to provide evidence for this. And does this mean that there is just a single person and everything else is VR - in which case that single person must be me (but you would probably conclude that this single person must be you). But if there is more than one person in this VR world then it isn't really VR, is it Sriram as we would presumably both exist and would presumably both be interacting with each other fundamentally in the real world not the VR world even if the medium for that interaction was VR.
No....it is not some imaginary or unlikely concept. It is really true that the world we see, feel, hear and perceive is created for us in our mind.
Different realities exist at different levels. Viruses perceive a different reality. Electrons would perceive a different reality. Strings would perceive a different reality.
The classical world is just one perception of reality at a certain scale. Independent of our mental processes what reality truly is, cannot be comprehended. This is not a speculative idea. It really is true!
-
No....it is not some imaginary or unlikely concept. It is really true that the world we see, feel, hear and perceive is created for us in our mind.
No it isn't - it is merely your assertion.
Viruses perceive a different reality.
No they don't - viruses are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.
Electrons would perceive a different reality.
No they don't - electrons are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.
Strings would perceive a different reality.
No they don't - strings are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.
Mechanistic interactions between entities (which viruses, electrons etc may have) isn't the same as perception which requires awareness - a virus or an electron may interact with something and that may cause an effect but is has no awareness that this has happened as neither have any consciousness.
The classical world is just one perception of reality at a certain scale. Independent of our mental processes what reality truly is, cannot be comprehended.
Baseless assertion.
This is not a speculative idea. It really is true!
Blimey uber-bullish baseless assertion. If this is true then I presume you will be able to prove this to be true with evidence.
Simply writing something down on a message board doesn't make it true.
Thinking something is true doesn't make it true.
Wanting something to be true (regardless of how much you really, really, really want it to be true) doesn't make it true.
-
How do you move beyond people's opinions?
I think we have to get onto the Common definition of good and bad before we can even qualify that someone even has an opinion and certainly before we can meaningfully talk of consensus of Good and bad
-
I think we have to get onto the Common definition of good and bad before we can even qualify that someone even has an opinion and certainly before we can meaningfully talk of consensus of Good and bad
And again, how do you move beyond people's opinions?
-
No it isn't - it is merely your assertion.
No they don't - viruses are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.
No they don't - electrons are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.
No they don't - strings are unable to perceive anything using the accepted defining of perception.
Mechanistic interactions between entities (which viruses, electrons etc may have) isn't the same as perception which requires awareness - a virus or an electron may interact with something and that may cause an effect but is has no awareness that this has happened as neither have any consciousness.
Baseless assertion.
Blimey uber-bullish baseless assertion. If this is true then I presume you will be able to prove this to be true with evidence.
Simply writing something down on a message board doesn't make it true.
Thinking something is true doesn't make it true.
Wanting something to be true (regardless of how much you really, really, really want it to be true) doesn't make it true.
There is nothing to prove here. It is a known fact that our perceptions are created within our minds....and independent of our senses and brain how reality would be perceived cannot be known.
I was referring to viruses and electrons just to indicate differences in scale. They would perceive reality differently if they could. This i thought, was obvious. ::)
-
They would perceive reality differently if they could. This i thought, was obvious. ::)
No Sriram - it isn't obvious at all, it is a really, really stupid comment.
If a virus could perceive then it clearly wouldn't be a virus.
If an electron could perceive then it clearly wouldn't be an electron.
This is just classic anthropocentric anthropomorphising non-sense.
-
Ok...thanks.
-
And again, how do you move beyond people's opinions?
What I am trying to say is that we don't even know what they are expressing an opinion on. Is it taste, is it what doesn't cause suffering, is it social division? Effectively consensus becomes harder the more we delve into what we mean.
-
What I am trying to say is that we don't even know what they are expressing an opinion on. Is it taste, is it what doesn't cause suffering, is it social division?
Yes you do: because they've told you what their opinion is.
Effectively consensus becomes harder the more we delve into what we mean.
Why?
-
What I am trying to say is that we don't even know what they are expressing an opinion on. Is it taste, is it what doesn't cause suffering, is it social division? Effectively consensus becomes harder the more we delve into what we mean.
if you take this position, then you are not only arguing against objective morality, but against any idea of morality. Is that your intention?
-
if you take this position, then you are not only arguing against objective morality, but against any idea of morality. Is that your intention?
No, I think I am suggesting that morality may be something than an opinion based on reason and that subjective opinion at it's extreme should render as many opinions on morality and moral problems as people holding them, it is a wonder therefore that we can talk at all about a concensus.
Morality comes therefore under a different category to reasoned thought or taste and something tighter and more concrete and so to me it suggests some form of moral realism where there are moral equations to be worked out by another faculty and where there are right and wrong answers irrespective of ''opinion''.
-
No, I think I am suggesting that morality may be something than an opinion based on reason and that subjective opinion at it's extreme should render as many opinions on morality and moral problems as people holding them, it is a wonder therefore that we can talk at all about a concensus.
Morality comes therefore under a different category to reasoned thought or taste and something tighter and more concrete and so to me it suggests some form of moral realism where there are moral equations to be worked out by another faculty and where there are right and wrong answers irrespective of ''opinion''.
Have you missed some words out here?
-
No, I think I am suggesting that morality may be something than an opinion based on reason and that subjective opinion at it's extreme should render as many opinions on morality and moral problems as people holding them, it is a wonder therefore that we can talk at all about a concensus.
Morality comes therefore under a different category to reasoned thought or taste and something tighter and more concrete and so to me it suggests some form of moral realism where there are moral equations to be worked out by another faculty and where there are right and wrong answers irrespective of ''opinion''.
I don't think that morality or ethics is merely personal taste in the manner that you seem to be suggesting those who disagree with you do. It isn't the equivalence of liking Mozart.
Firstly morality or ethics involves consideration of things (actions, attitudes etc) that may be considered to be right or wrong - in that context it isn't like Mozart - it is irrelevant whether you like Mozart if I do. But morality and ethics involves attitudes and behaviours towards one another so it is broadened beyond the individual.
And I don't think that we are necessarily dealing with a consensus view, although that would be valuable - no we are dealing with societal norms, that which is accepted broadly within a particular society at a particular time. And those societal norms change over time and will be different from one society to another. And if when we consider our own individual view on what is right or wrong does not align with the societal norm then we can (perhaps we should) use argument to try to persuade that society to shift its accepted norms. This is surely how our morality and ethics evolve over time. And again, this is nothing like liking Mozart - there is no onus on me to persuade you that Mozart is great, it is purely a personal view and you aren't affected whether or not I hold that view.
So morality and ethics evolve and are subjective, but that subjectivity goes beyond the individual, it is societal, in effect subjective at societal level. What it isn't is objective.
-
I don't think that morality or ethics is merely personal taste in the manner that you seem to be suggesting those who disagree with you do.
In what manner of personal taste do you think morality and ethics are then?
Firstly morality or ethics involves consideration of things (actions, attitudes etc) that may be considered to be right or wrong
but by using the word ''considering'' you are suggesting that this is somehow reasoned out. The question is how is the notion of Good and bad reasoned out, by logic?, by goals?, by social cohesion? What role does just feeling that a bad thing or a good thing has or may be about to happen play? - in that context it isn't like Mozart
so what is it like?.
And I don't think that we are necessarily dealing with a consensus view, although that would be valuable - no we are dealing with societal norms
Ah so you are agreeing that when we are ''doing'' morality, thinking rationally is not paramount or do you think there is some collective social mind?, that which is accepted broadly within a particular society at a particular time. And those societal norms change over time and will be different from one society to another.
Isn't that statement too vague to be functionally helpful in understanding morality? After all change is built in and if thought is not involved since only individuals think we need to know how normal social morality specifically changes. And if when we consider our own individual view on what is right or wrong does not align with the societal norm then we can (perhaps we should) use argument to try to persuade that society to shift its accepted norms.
But when you say we must argue moral alternative or novelty what is it we are appealing to. In other words, how do you propose to change the mind of something that doesn't have a mind i.e. society This is surely how our morality and ethics evolve over time.
Then I suggest there must be the moral equivalent of DNA and the moral equivalent of fossils and offspring resembling the parent in your scheme.I think I would suggest a model that rather than changing and evolving, morality is more akin to science, a kind of stripping back to see the underlying truth and that description has at least the merit of being less vague than palming it off as change and evolution.