Proving Morality

[Kshartle]

I agree with all that. However, this all is independent of whether an action can be "wrong" or whether a "should" can even exist, naturally. Of course, this is your ultimate task... Proving an "ought."

Just pointing that out.  We can't be assuming our conclusions here .

So you agree we should not do what is wrong?

This is proving an "ought not". We still need to define those actions that we "ought not" do to understand what is immoral. If we can't define anything then the statement is useless.

No conclusions have been assumed. If you or anyone thinks my previous comments were incorrect, please point out specifically where and how. If you can't do that, then either agree or at least don't make a negative comment that doesn't add anything.

[Kshartle]

"We shouldn't do what is wrong"
.
.
.
.
It's a true statement of fact. Thus, we should not do what is wrong, we should not act in a manner of behavior that is not in accoradance with reality blah blah.

"We shouldn't do what is gobbledygook".  I realize we do not have a commonly held definition of gobbledygook, but that is not a problem.  You will just have to trust me on this.

It's a true statement of fact.  Thus, we should not do what is gobbledygook, we should not act in a manner of behavior that is not in accordance with reality blah blah.  If you do not like the word gobbledygook, substitute one of your choosing since no one will have the same definition that you do but we will move the process forward.

Make sense? 

... Mountaineer

No M I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you think I am incorrect? If so, please show me where and demonstrate why I'm incorrect.

[rickb]

"We shouldn't do what is wrong"
.
.
.
.
It's a true statement of fact. Thus, we should not do what is wrong, we should not act in a manner of behavior that is not in accoradance with reality blah blah.

"We shouldn't do what is gobbledygook".  I realize we do not have a commonly held definition of gobbledygook, but that is not a problem.  You will just have to trust me on this.

It's a true statement of fact.  Thus, we should not do what is gobbledygook, we should not act in a manner of behavior that is not in accordance with reality blah blah.  If you do not like the word gobbledygook, substitute one of your choosing since no one will have the same definition that you do but we will move the process forward.

Make sense? 

... Mountaineer

No M I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you think I am incorrect? If so, please show me where and demonstrate why I'm incorrect.

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread lately, but I think Mountaineer's point has to do with the definition of "wrong".

Where, exactly, is this defined?

If it's not exactly defined, then the statement "We shouldn't do what is wrong" is not defined either, so the "fact" that its negation is "false" doesn't mean anything.  Neither the statement, or its negation, are defined which means both are neither true or false.

I believe this a M's point.

[rickb]

"We shouldn't do what is gobbledygook".  I realize we do not have a commonly held definition of gobbledygook, but that is not a problem.  You will just have to trust me on this.

It's a true statement of fact.  Thus, we should not do what is gobbledygook, we should not act in a manner of behavior that is not in accordance with reality blah blah.  If you do not like the word gobbledygook, substitute one of your choosing since no one will have the same definition that you do but we will move the process forward.

Make sense? 

... Mountaineer

No M I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you think I am incorrect? If so, please show me where and demonstrate why I'm incorrect.

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread lately, but I think Mountaineer's point has to do with the definition of "wrong".

Where, exactly, is this defined?

If it's not exactly defined, then the statement "We shouldn't do what is wrong" is not defined either, so the "fact" that its negation is "false" doesn't mean anything.  Neither the statement, or its negation, are defined which means both are neither true or false.

I believe this a M's point.

OK, found it.

The definition of “wrong”? is: "Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous." (from http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... ality/555/)

So, what the statement you're "proving" is correct (by showing its negation is false) is "we should not do what is not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous".

Isn't anything I do "in conformity with fact or truth"?  I pretty much can't do an imaginary thing, right?  So, given the definitions here I think anything I do must not be "wrong" (according to your definition of "wrong").  I.e. as defined, "wrong" has nothing whatsoever to do with a moralistic "right" or "wrong", but only with an objective "true" or "false".  If I've actually done it, then it would be wrong (as in "incorrect") to say I haven't done it.

The issue here is you've defined "wrong" (and, presumably "right") not with their moralistic definitions but with their objective true/false definitions.  Now, you're trying to use them in a statement with their moralistic definition (which is not how they're defined, here - right?).

A long time ago, I posted a proof in this thread that 1=2 (http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg92800).  This "proof" relies on a very subtle error in definition.  You are doing essentially the same thing.  Taking words you define to be one thing, and using them to "prove" statements using completely different definitions.

It is morally wrong to use the word wrong in a statement suggesting wrong has a moralistic meaning in a context in which wrong is defined to be false.

[Mountaineer]

"We shouldn't do what is wrong"
.
.
.
.
It's a true statement of fact. Thus, we should not do what is wrong, we should not act in a manner of behavior that is not in accoradance with reality blah blah.

"We shouldn't do what is gobbledygook".  I realize we do not have a commonly held definition of gobbledygook, but that is not a problem.  You will just have to trust me on this.

It's a true statement of fact.  Thus, we should not do what is gobbledygook, we should not act in a manner of behavior that is not in accordance with reality blah blah.  If you do not like the word gobbledygook, substitute one of your choosing since no one will have the same definition that you do but we will move the process forward.

Make sense? 

... Mountaineer

No M I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you think I am incorrect? If so, please show me where and demonstrate why I'm incorrect.

rickb addressed my issue much more eloquently than I could have done.  Thanks rickb.

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

No M I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Do you disagree with anything I said? Do you think I am incorrect? If so, please show me where and demonstrate why I'm incorrect.

I haven't been paying much attention to this thread lately, but I think Mountaineer's point has to do with the definition of "wrong".

Where, exactly, is this defined?

If it's not exactly defined, then the statement "We shouldn't do what is wrong" is not defined either, so the "fact" that its negation is "false" doesn't mean anything.  Neither the statement, or its negation, are defined which means both are neither true or false.

I believe this a M's point.

OK, found it.

The definition of “wrong”? is: "Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous." (from http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... ality/555/)

So, what the statement you're "proving" is correct (by showing its negation is false) is "we should not do what is not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous".

Isn't anything I do "in conformity with fact or truth"?  I pretty much can't do an imaginary thing, right?  So, given the definitions here I think anything I do must not be "wrong" (according to your definition of "wrong").  I.e. as defined, "wrong" has nothing whatsoever to do with a moralistic "right" or "wrong", but only with an objective "true" or "false".  If I've actually done it, then it would be wrong (as in "incorrect") to say I haven't done it.

The issue here is you've defined "wrong" (and, presumably "right") not with their moralistic definitions but with their objective true/false definitions.  Now, you're trying to use them in a statement with their moralistic definition (which is not how they're defined, here - right?).

A long time ago, I posted a proof in this thread that 1=2 (http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg92800).  This "proof" relies on a very subtle error in definition.  You are doing essentially the same thing.  Taking words you define to be one thing, and using them to "prove" statements using completely different definitions.

It is morally wrong to use the word wrong in a statement suggesting wrong has a moralistic meaning in a context in which wrong is defined to be false.

YESSSSS! The same is true of someone making the argument that something is "unnatural"....when a person for example says that homosexual relations with a man are wrong because they are unnatural they are speaking pure nonsense. First for the reason you stated...that if it happened it is true, and therefore not wrong and secondly, because if it can happen then it is perfectly natural.

I don't know why people have so much trouble being comfortable with the fact that morality is completely a human construct that does not actually exist in the universe at large which seems to be governed only by the laws of "possible" and "impossible"

This isn't to say that we can't have a utilitarian form of morality that is based upon some agreed upon assumptions about life, but to try to say that this morality "exists" and can be proven is totally absurd IMHO.

[l82start]

split out the posts on religion and merged them in the religion thread...

[moda0306]

The problem with K's statements on "ought" is that they assume a conclusion about behavior that hasn't been agreed upon yet... Whether moral or amoral, to have a behavior imperative you must have a premise included in that imperative that drives behavior. This is all assumed in his premise "you should not do what is incorrect."  He assumes an action can be "incorrect."  It isn't proven. The premise is irrelevant if you can't prove an action can be incorrect.

We hashed this out over pages. An action is either taken or it is not. To the degree that it will possibly affect an outcome it may have a "correctness" to it. Even if amoral.  Deflating my tires won't produce better gas mileage. So my CONCLUSION about reality was "incorrect," but my action of deflating tires was just an action. The only thing that was "wrong," objectively, was my conclusion that deflating my tires will improve my gas mileage.  The action was just a natural result of my control of my body and believing something about reality. It either happened or it didn't.

I can accept that a decision can be incorrect insofar as it is a conclusion to an argument of how to affect a certain outcome. But this is 1) completely independent of morality (for now, anyway), and 2) still requires a premise that contains an "ought."  No ought is self-evident.  Even the objectivist "ought" of maximizing personal happiness is NOT self evident. It must be proven.

[Kshartle]

The problem with K's statements on "ought" is that they assume a conclusion about behavior that hasn't been agreed upon yet... Whether moral or amoral, to have a behavior imperative you must have a premise included in that imperative that drives behavior. This is all assumed in his premise "you should not do what is incorrect."  He assumes an action can be "incorrect."  It isn't proven. The premise is irrelevant if you can't prove an action can be incorrect.

We hashed this out over pages. An action is either taken or it is not. To the degree that it will possibly affect an outcome it may have a "correctness" to it. Even if amoral.  Deflating my tires won't produce better gas mileage. So my CONCLUSION about reality was "incorrect," but my action of deflating tires was just an action. The only thing that was "wrong," objectively, was my conclusion that deflating my tires will improve my gas mileage.  The action was just a natural result of my control of my body and believing something about reality. It either happened or it didn't.

I can accept that a decision can be incorrect insofar as it is a conclusion to an argument of how to affect a certain outcome. But this is 1) completely independent of morality (for now, anyway), and 2) still requires a premise that contains an "ought."  No ought is self-evident.  Even the objectivist "ought" of maximizing personal happiness is NOT self evident. It must be proven.

Ok I actually just read this.

I agree the next step is to determine when an action is objectively wrong/incorrect.