Proving Morality

[moda0306]

PS.....this is the argument I have made. The posters who disagree with me do not dispute the logic or the substance of my argument. They just keep saying morality is subjective and there is no certainty so anyone claiming this must be wrong.

Let's stick with trying to decide whether self-ownership and morally valid property ownership are provable moral imperatives.

Not that PS or I think they aren't part of a discussion of morality, but we are stating that it can't be PROVEN to be the only moral measuring stick.

Notice how you just proved my point. You are closed minded about it. You provide no evidence or support for your belief but it prevents you from hearing my argument correctly.

You are certain it can't be proven AS YOU JUST SAID. Therefore, anything I say is automatically false because it cannot be correct. You do not believe it's possible for me to be correct so you automatically reject my argument without listening to it. Your belief is so cemented in that you can't see how your argument is circular.

If you even said "maybe there is a slim chance that you could possibly be right, even though I highly doubt it" that would demonstrate the bare minimum of an open mind neccessary to have a real discussion.

K,

You seem to have some real trouble understanding how logical assertions work, and you don't seem to be very open-minded about learning.

If you are making a deductive (an argument producing a "necessarily true" conclusion) argument, and I am "trying" to challenge you on the fact that  it is deductive, I have to either 1) show how your premises are not NECESSARILY true (I don't have to prove them false), or 2) show how your conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow your premises (I don't have to prove that the opposite follows, or prove the Conclusion false).

Do you understand this?  Do you agree with it?

If you think you've "proven" something, and I think you haven't, my job is to attack your premises/conclusion on the basis of 1) truth, and 2) connectivity.  That's what I've been doing, as best I can, in the absence of you showing us how all your logic connects.

Your minds are already closed to the possibility that there is an absolute right and wrong.

K,

I'm not closed-minded to anything that can be proven with logic.  I simply don't think you have done a good job proving it. 

So you are disagreeing with your previous stance (that you have been holding in all of these discussions) that it's impossible for absolute right and wrong to exist and that it's impossible to prove it?

This would be huge. Have you changed your mind on this or are you just playing devil's advocate?

I'm stating that you haven't proven that absolute right or wrong exist and what they are.  Perhaps there's a perfect argument out there for morality, but you certainly haven't found it, as (what appear to be) your premises aren't necessarily true, and your conclusion does not necessarily follow said premises.

Why won't you use a deductive logic format to illustrate your "argument?"  I really, really, really think that you're completely missing some logical/philosophical tools in your tool belt that would either aid you in making your argument better, or understand why your argument is invalid/unsound or both.

[Kshartle]

Why won't you use a deductive logic format to illustrate your "argument?"  I really, really, really think that you're completely missing some logical/philosophical tools in your tool belt that would either aid you in making your argument better, or understand why your argument is invalid/unsound or both.

Ok.

Do you agree that you exist? Let's start there.

[moda0306]

K,

Your discussions of the sick/young/old etc are always on the basis of either 1) arguing from effects (people "just will" take care of their kids... we don't need government pointing a gun at us) (which happens to be in direct contradiction to valid discussions of morality given self-ownership and the NAP... NO arguing from effects!), or 2) bringing in this apparent "duty of stewardship," which a) doesn't appear to be a necessarily logical conclusion to any premises you've set forth, and b) actually seems to undermine the concept of ownership a bit (a duty to "maximize" or "take care" of MY property!?).

However, let's get to this later.  You still just simply haven't logically PROVEN much.  Let's start on the initial stuff, and get to "stewardship" and arguing from effects in these grey areas later.

[moda0306]

Why won't you use a deductive logic format to illustrate your "argument?"  I really, really, really think that you're completely missing some logical/philosophical tools in your tool belt that would either aid you in making your argument better, or understand why your argument is invalid/unsound or both.

Ok.

Do you agree that you exist? Let's start there.

For all intents and purposes, yes.  Sometimes I ponder whether this is all really happening, but sure... let's avoid the really meta-physical stuff.

But it sure would help if you just laid out your premises at once, as well as the conclusion that they lead to, rather than asking me one question at a time.

You of all people should know that asking questions is not an argument .

[Kshartle]

Why won't you use a deductive logic format to illustrate your "argument?"  I really, really, really think that you're completely missing some logical/philosophical tools in your tool belt that would either aid you in making your argument better, or understand why your argument is invalid/unsound or both.

Ok.

Do you agree that you exist? Let's start there.

For all intents and purposes, yes.  Sometimes I ponder whether this is all really happening, but sure... let's avoid the really meta-physical stuff.

But it sure would help if you just laid out your premises at once, as well as the conclusion that they lead to, rather than asking me one question at a time.

You of all people should know that asking questions is not an argument .

We must agree on definitions and basic premises. If I refer to you or property or ownership I need to be sure we agree on the definition of those words.

I'm afraid this is going to take a lot of questions and back and forth. It will not be completed today. I'm not going to write a novel and have it be a waste of time because you disagree with me on the first damn premise i.e. "You haven't PROVEN I exist"

[Pointedstick]

I've discussed the elderly, the mentally ill, addicts, stupid people, children at length.

Yes, using arguments from effects rather than logic. I've yet to see you make the logical arguments on these subjects that are required to prove your case logically.

Furthermore, discussing something at length isn't the same thing as convincing people that your argument makes sense. It's like the difference between the labor theory of value and the marginal utility theory of value. More isn't better. "Better" is determined by the consumer, not the producer.

Do you believe absolute right and wrong might exist?

Do you beleive it's possible for someone to prove it?

This would be a departure from your previous statements and I would welcome it.

Of course it might. I don't believe that it does right now, but I'm totally willing to admit that it does and I simply haven't realized it yet.

[Kshartle]

Of course it might. I don't believe that it does right now, but I'm totally willing to admit that it does and I simply haven't realized it yet.

Ok fantastic. Onto definitions. It doesn't matter what I think the definition of right and wrong is. If I'm trying to convince you that certain actions are morally "right" and certain ones are "wrong" we must agree on the definition of morally right and wrong.

I'll try to dig up a good definition and see if you agree or you can post your definition.

Your definition is what matters...not mine. If I convince you my definition exists it's worthless.

[moda0306]

Ok.

Do you agree that you exist? Let's start there.

For all intents and purposes, yes.  Sometimes I ponder whether this is all really happening, but sure... let's avoid the really meta-physical stuff.

But it sure would help if you just laid out your premises at once, as well as the conclusion that they lead to, rather than asking me one question at a time.

You of all people should know that asking questions is not an argument .

We must agree on definitions and basic premises. If I refer to you or property or ownership I need to be sure we agree on the definition of those words.

I'm afraid this is going to take a lot of questions and back and forth. It will not be completed today. I'm not going to write a novel and have it be a waste of time because you disagree with me on the first damn premise i.e. "You haven't PROVEN I exist"

K,

Definitions are important, but if you can lay out your logical case in less than 10 premises, you can define certain (obviously important) terms along the way, or I can come back and clarify after I see them (or, more likely, some combination of the two).

I'll assume for now, that any premise you list, either you believe to be self-evident, or provable by some other set of arguments.  If I agree with that, I'll either overtly state "yep I agree," or ask for you to dig deeper.

I really am not trying to make an ass out of you... I really WILL do this in good faith.  I'm not trying to trap you.  I truly want this to be an efficient exchange of ideas.

Like I said before, I'm 100% willing to let you go back and reform some of this stuff if you need to to make it work, as long as we're making progress.  Your job is SO much harder than mine.  Deductive logic is HARD... I mean sometimes, if people keep challenging things, we DO get into debates of whether or not we even exist.  That's how annoyingly difficult deductive logic CAN be if someone wants to make it that way.  I'm really not trying to take it into the meta-physical realm or pick apart every definition.  Scouts honor.

[moda0306]

Of course it might. I don't believe that it does right now, but I'm totally willing to admit that it does and I simply haven't realized it yet.

Ok fantastic. Onto definitions. It doesn't matter what I think the definition of right and wrong is. If I'm trying to convince you that certain actions are morally "right" and certain ones are "wrong" we must agree on the definition of morally right and wrong.

I'll try to dig up a good definition and see if you agree or you can post your definition.

Your definition is what matters...not mine. If I convince you my definition exists it's worthless.

Can we simply boil morally right and wrong into "ought to" and "ought not to?"

Does anyone have a problem with that?

I mean, in the end, we're trying to build a blue-print for personal behavior.  It really is about what we "ought" to do, or it's useless for us.

[moda0306]

Goddammit... I want to keep in this convo but have to get back to work.  Somebody stay here to politely keep K on track... who knows, he might actually have the proof we've been looking for.

Approach this from the mental standpoint of actually TRYING to help him find his proof!!!

I am excited to return!

K, I think you'll find that the process we're about to enter into might give you a bit of an epiphany on making arguments that you believe have a necessarily proven conclusion.  My philosophy class did for me when they got into this business.

[Kshartle]

I have to work too. This will take a lot of time. There are a lot of beliefs that must be shattered, not the least of which is the idea that there are multiple, correct moralities.

We have to agree that there is some form of reality, that something actually exists. That existance would be truth and anything said in oppostion to reality is false.

The idea that things are true simply because someone beleives abounds here.

So lets start with the really basic (although not widely understood idea) that there is actually something called reality.

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

[Kshartle]

Of course it might. I don't believe that it does right now, but I'm totally willing to admit that it does and I simply haven't realized it yet.

Ok fantastic. Onto definitions. It doesn't matter what I think the definition of right and wrong is. If I'm trying to convince you that certain actions are morally "right" and certain ones are "wrong" we must agree on the definition of morally right and wrong.

I'll try to dig up a good definition and see if you agree or you can post your definition.

Your definition is what matters...not mine. If I convince you my definition exists it's worthless.

Can we simply boil morally right and wrong into "ought to" and "ought not to?"

Does anyone have a problem with that?

I mean, in the end, we're trying to build a blue-print for personal behavior.  It really is about what we "ought" to do, or it's useless for us.

Ought to do is not sufficient. We "ought" to do what's right. Well....what does it mean to be right? If we ought to do it because it's right it can't be right because we ought to do it.

That's circular. I'll lay out what it means to me to be right vs. wrong. I might not get to it today I started work at 11 due to a hangover and late night posting here.

This forum giveth and taketh away.

[Pointedstick]

So lets start with the really basic (although not widely understood idea) that there is actually something called reality.

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

Okay, I agree with all of that.

[Kshartle]

So lets start with the really basic (although not widely understood idea) that there is actually something called reality.

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

Okay, I agree with all of that.

This is a huge relief to me.

Ok I am really ignoring work now.

I'll try to post these in groups of 3 or 4. That way if clarification is needed or a contradiction arises we can address it before I waste 3 hours.

[Pointedstick]

This is a huge relief to me.

Ok I am really ignoring work now.

I'll try to post these in groups of 3 or 4. That way if clarification is needed or a contradiction arises we can address it before I waste 3 hours.

Great! Perhaps one clarification on #1... Just because some things are real even though we can't see or understand them, that doesn't mean that everything that we can't see or understand is real. I might believe in invisible pink unicorns that don't actually exist even if though I can't see or understand them.

So #1 still doesn't prove that objective morality actually exists, for example. It might exist, sure (and religious people are certainly very sure of this), but it still has to be proven to me in order for me to accept that it doesn't objectively exist as opposed to morality just being subjective beliefs and interpretations designed as social lubricants for a species intelligent enough to think about this kind of stuff (my current belief).

[moda0306]

So lets start with the really basic (although not widely understood idea) that there is actually something called reality.

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

Okay, I agree with all of that.

Not so fast, K... you really haven't proven that we exist... how do you know that?


JK we're good. 

[Kshartle]

This is a huge relief to me.

Ok I am really ignoring work now.

I'll try to post these in groups of 3 or 4. That way if clarification is needed or a contradiction arises we can address it before I waste 3 hours.

Great! Perhaps one clarification on #1... Just because some things are real even though we can't see or understand them, that doesn't mean that everything that we can't see or understand is real. I might believe in invisible pink unicorns that don't actually exist even if though I can't see or understand them.

So #1 still doesn't prove that objective morality actually exists, for example. It might exist, sure (and religious people are certainly very sure of this), but it still has to be proven to me in order for me to accept that it doesn't objectively exist as opposed to morality just being subjective beliefs and interpretations designed as social lubricants for a species intelligent enough to think about this kind of stuff (my current belief).

Umm....yes.....things are not real just because we can't see or understand them.

Is that what you're saying? If so....agreed.

None of these are meant to prove that objective morality exists on their own.

[Pointedstick]

Umm....yes.....things are not real just because we can't see or understand them.

Is that what you're saying? If so....agreed.

None of these are meant to prove that objective morality exists on their own.

Cool, we're still on the same page.

[moda0306]

K,

Regarding "right" and "wrong," I was trying to deal with them in terms of what they imply or our behavior, not the fundamental reason that something is morally "right" vs "wrong."

I now see what you mean.

But isn't that the whole question?  You mean to define right vs wrong... well if you don't mean "define" in the sense that it's what you "ought" or "ought not" to do, it must mean what is the SOURCE of moral vs immoral behavior, so in my mind, your logic is what is providing that definition in terms of a deductively provable conclusion.

If, in fact, you can prove self-ownership, private property, and the NAP and all that, if we forget about grey areas that don't work well for a sec, then we're left with a pretty solid "definition" of morality and immorality:

"Morality" or "Right action" is the act of avoiding taking forcible action against someone's life, liberty or property.

"Immorality" or "Wrong Action" is the act of taking forcible action against someone's life, liberty or property.

(that first definition reads a bit funny... but you get my idea)

So in essence, your question of how to DEFINE morality and immorality (or "right" and "wrong") is EXACTLY what your logic is seeking to do.  It is a PRODUCT of the process we're attempting... not a CONTRIBUTOR to the process.



Maybe this is a point we should hash out...

[moda0306]

Umm....yes.....things are not real just because we can't see or understand them.

Is that what you're saying? If so....agreed.

None of these are meant to prove that objective morality exists on their own.

Cool, we're still on the same page.

Totally agreed.

[Mountaineer]

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

1. I agree
2. I agree
3. I sort of agree, with the first part - BUT, I believe a human being exists at the moment of conception, but I'm not sure it yet has the ability to have conscious thought and I can't think of a way to prove or disprove my belief.  Perhaps premise 1 is the answer to that?????  Is the conscious part important to further discussion on this?
4. I sort of agree but it seems that premise 1 invalidates this premise 4.  E.g. I do believe God can enter our minds or are we ruling out God as being something real even if we can't understand Him?  What are our groundrules for definitions of "something"?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

1. I agree
2. I agree
3. I sort of agree, with the first part - BUT, I believe a human being exists at the moment of conception, but I'm not sure it yet has the ability to have conscious thought and I can't think of a way to prove or disprove my belief.  Perhaps premise 1 is the answer to that?????  Is the conscious part important to further discussion on this?
4. I sort of agree but it seems that premise 1 invalidates this premise 4.  E.g. I do believe God can enter our minds or are we ruling out God as being something real even if we can't understand Him?  What are our groundrules for definitions of "something"?

... Mountaineer

3. We'll see if it ends up being important. The kid thing is a grey area and might take more work. Let's start with what we can prove. We can stick to adults for now. We can even limit it to just me and you if need be. The point is we exist and we are this thing called a human being that we assign certain charcteristics to that distinguish us from other things, rocks, vermish kanids etc. One of those characteristics is the capacity for thought and reason, even if it takes us a while to get there.

4. Tough one because your fundamental belief is different. This is an attempt to prove that right or wrong exist as a funtion of reality as we can prove it. I don't think God falls into that category although I understand if you disagree. However without getting too far down the rabbit hole........don't you think ultimately your belief in God is purely faith? If it's purely faith then you would have to agree we are incapable of literraly "proving" it to anyone.

God doesn't have to not exist for right an wrong to be ojectively provable as a function of what reality is and how we define "right and wrong". If he made the world then he made it like this anyway.

[Xan]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't say that belief in God is "purely faith", nor would I say that it can be rationally proven.  I also wouldn't say that any manmade moral framework can be rationally proven, but that remains to be seen here in this thread.

I'm content to leave God out of it for now, and see whether it's possible to deductively define a universal morality from materialistic premises.  I really, really don't think that it is, but we'll see.

[Mountaineer]

I, like Xan, can observe the flow for a while on this - BUT, I think in all fairness I have to say that I'm uncomfortable with premise 3 (for the reason I mentioned plus your use of the word "creature" implies there is a Creator).  And, I'm uncomfortable with premise 4 because it seems to be in conflict with premise 1 as I stated before.  I think those premises 3 and 4 need some additional clarification for the reasons I stated.  i.e. the house needs a good foundation before it can be built to last.

... Mountaineer

[rickb]

1. Something is real, even if we don't understand it or see it.
2. We are a part of that reality, in some form or another.
3. The form that we accept, and I think the only one that a case can be made for, is that we are human beings. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have concious thoughts.
4. No one else is us. We are unique individuals. No one else occupies the space that we are in. No one else has our mind, and no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity).

I'm not sure I buy #4.  This implication is that the natural state is unbrainwashed.  By the time you're an adult, you have become part of a society which has rules and norms you have internalized.  Those who fail to do this are considered psychopaths.  Hardly anyone chooses what society they become part of - it's mostly a function of where on the planet you were born (and historically when).  This is important because I think where you're probably going is "you control (or are responsible for) your own actions".  This is not true in an absolute sense.  You control your own actions within the context of the societal norms that you internalize - so society has a say in your actions as well.

Perhaps this simply leads to a #5

5. No one exists as a completely independent person - everyone is part of some society.

Skipping far ahead - where this leads is that right and wrong are not absolutes, but at least to some extent a function of society.  This makes intuitive sense.  Even though they're both human beings, right and wrong to a caveman (anywhere on earth) is quite different from right and wrong to someone born and raised in the United States in the late 20th century.  Perhaps not as radically different, right and wrong to nomadic native Americans in the 1500s is different from right and wrong to people born in the same place now.