Proving Morality

[moda0306]

But part of what you're trying to sell here is an objective morality that 100% of the human race will get on board with on their own, with no enforcement of any kind.  So...  You kinda DO have to convince everyone, or else you're automatically wrong.  Like Moda said, you've laid out a really hard task for yourself.

If you believe the world is flat I and I can't convince you that it's round am I wrong? Is it flat? Come on. It might be that I can't convince you because you're not in a position to change your mind. That doesn't make me wrong. You proving the world isn't round or at least pointing out where my argument contradicts itself would.

You aren't just claiming self-ownership/NAP/anarcho-capitalism is correct, you are claiming that it is PROVABLY correct using logic. 

So it's not about "convincing" us... it's about actually supplying a deductive argument in the proper format, first, and then having a reasonable discussion on 1) the truth of each premise, and 2) the conclusions you make logically, necessarily following the premise.

You can say "I'm internally convinced," or "I've spoken to God but can't prove it," or say "the consequences of anarcho-capitalism will be peace, productivity and happiness the likes of which we've never seen," and those might be discussions that we just can't move anywhere on (most political arguments from consequences are tough to prove by the very nature of the inputs involved).

But you don't... you claim it's LOGICALLY provable, as do all anarcho-capitalists.

You then refuse to lay it out as a logical structure, but go on run-on paragraphs, and it's hard to tell exactly what premises exist as proven by others, and what premises are to be self-evident.  Further, conflation of terms ("responsible" vs "own"), and whether they have a normative value to them further confuses the point.

If it's provable, PROVE IT!  Use an almost universally identifiable logical structure, define some terms, forget about the metaphysical stuff (do we "exist," are we really in any "control" of ourselves or is it pre-determined), and let us pick it apart.

And keep in mind, this is ALL existing BEFORE we even get to grey areas of (though I think we should leave them alone for now):

Elderly
Mentally handicapped
Kids/babies
Pollution
"Risk to others" in my behavior and whether that constitutes aggression
Pushing an onlooker out of the way to save a drowning child
Property disputes (past, present, and future)
Animals



K,

I've found something on Youtube that might be a little premature with all the other debates this has delved into with Rick, but I find that it almost PERFECTLY explains my position (though in a MUCH more articulate fashion).  I know you hate links, but this guy is a philosopher and I find it very difficult to articulate my position as well as he does .  Please watch.

I'd recommend everyone else do as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEkSF01NzQo


It dicusses normative vs functional logic, conflation of terms, and connections between premises and conclusions... and it does so directly dealing in the context of the deductive "provability" of self-ownership or the connection of said self-ownership to the ownership of property... exactly what I've been (trying to) say to Kshartle, though in no where near as articulate a form.

[Kshartle]

Question for clarity or understanding:  When you use the words "objectively" and "subjective" in the context of your proof, do you mean - objective is proof coming from something external to ones self, and subjective as something that exists within a person?

Yes precisely.

Don't be put off too soon M, I don't think that if morality or right/wrong behavior can be proven to objectively exist it means God doesn't exist. If he exists he exists regardless of anything else existing and the argument can always be made that he made reality this way.

[Kshartle]

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong.

6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

7. A statement of opinion about a fact is not an opinion, it's a weak-form statement of fact, like trying to have your cake and eat it to. Even though the person claims to be stating their opinion....they in fact can be wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an opinion, that's BS.

[Kshartle]

But part of what you're trying to sell here is an objective morality that 100% of the human race will get on board with on their own, with no enforcement of any kind.  So...  You kinda DO have to convince everyone, or else you're automatically wrong.  Like Moda said, you've laid out a really hard task for yourself.

If you believe the world is flat I and I can't convince you that it's round am I wrong? Is it flat? Come on. It might be that I can't convince you because you're not in a position to change your mind. That doesn't make me wrong. You proving the world isn't round or at least pointing out where my argument contradicts itself would.

You aren't just claiming self-ownership/NAP/anarcho-capitalism is correct, you are claiming that it is PROVABLY correct using logic. 

Yes. Your acceptance is not my criteria though I hope you accept it. If I walk through every detail regarding how the sun will supernova at some point and you keep saying you don't understand or don't agree that doesn't mean I'm wrong or that I haven't proven it. It could mean you're closed minded or unable to understand.

This is important because I'm probably going to attack some very closely held beliefs that people have been taught are correct their entire lives. The chance that most people will be open minded enough to give up on them is slim.

My point is, if I'm wrong it's because my argument is inconsistent and can be argued against. Saying "I'm not convinced" is not an argument, though I'm sure at least one person will say that. I doubt they'll say why....which to me means they are just clinging to a belief system they don't want shattered because it will make them uncomfortable.

[Kshartle]

And keep in mind, this is ALL existing BEFORE we even get to grey areas of (though I think we should leave them alone for now):

Elderly
Mentally handicapped
Kids/babies
Pollution
"Risk to others" in my behavior and whether that constitutes aggression
Pushing an onlooker out of the way to save a drowning child
Property disputes (past, present, and future)
Animals

Good Lord, ok let's get to mentally healthy human adult self-ownership first.

It might be that some of those grey areas are not moral issues. I'll confess I haven't pondered them all to an exhaustive level. Like I said, I never really considered whether or not we have an obligation to other people (save our children) and I kinda think we don't just based on our discussion last week. Let's go through this. It will take a while.

By all means.....If I put two or three premises together into a conclusion and you disagree let me know.

[Kshartle]

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong

How can a subjective value statement be wrong?  Obviously, two different people can place different value on something, but I don't understand how one of them can be wrong.

Perhaps an example will be helpful.

"I prefer vanilla to chocolate" - when in fact I prefer chocolate. "I love my wife dearly" - when in fact I cheat on her or beat her and don't love her.

I stated my opinion but it's wrong/not true/a lie.  You can't prove I'm lying or wrong, but I am.


You can see how this is different from saying "it's my opinion the world is flat right"? Anyone can prove that is wrong.

[moda0306]

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong.

6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

7. A statement of opinion about a fact is not an opinion, it's a weak-form statement of fact, like trying to have your cake and eat it to. Even though the person claims to be stating their opinion....they in fact can be wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an opinion, that's BS.

I think I can agree with all those.

I also agree that saying "I am not convinced," is not an argument.  Though if one is not an avid practitioner of logic, he/she might say "I am not convinced that this conclusion follows your premises," and while they haven't done their job at completely dismantling your argument, they have at least identified an area, in good faith, that perhaps involves further discussion as to it's connection to the conclusion.

Fair enough?

[Kshartle]

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong.

6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

7. A statement of opinion about a fact is not an opinion, it's a weak-form statement of fact, like trying to have your cake and eat it to. Even though the person claims to be stating their opinion....they in fact can be wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an opinion, that's BS.

I think I can agree with all those.

I also agree that saying "I am not convinced," is not an argument.  Though if one is not an avid practitioner of logic, he/she might say "I am not convinced that this conclusion follows your premises," and while they haven't done their job at completely dismantling your argument, they have at least identified an area, in good faith, that perhaps involves further discussion as to it's connection to the conclusion.

Fair enough?

Fair, if they can identify an area. They haven't completely or partially dismantled anything though, they've just stated an opinion (that only they can prove is false) and not a fact.

the reason I bring this up is because I'm sure we've all been in a dissagreement with someone and you realize they are arguing that all their opinions are "facts" and all your facts are just your "opinions".

If we're going to have a discussion on what is and what isn't it's important to distinguish between fact and opinion. It's also vital to realize that there is no such thing as an "opinon" about a fact, in that, your opinion about the fact doesn't make it true or false. It's true or false regardless of your opinion.

I've had some disagreements with MT in particular about this where I've argued that it doesn't matter if it's your opinion that Santa exists or that you can flap your wings and fly. Your "opinion" is wrong because you're trying to claim an opinion is a fact or that somehow your opinion can change objective reality or a fact. It can't.

It's my "opinion"  this is critical because these premises will be stated as facts and people will try to argue they are subjective opinions; and I suspect a lot of people will say they dissagree with the facts because they themselves have a different opinion. If we can distinguish between fact and opinion we'll be a lot better off....in many areas of our lives (opinion). 

[moda0306]

And keep in mind, this is ALL existing BEFORE we even get to grey areas of (though I think we should leave them alone for now):

Elderly
Mentally handicapped
Kids/babies
Pollution
"Risk to others" in my behavior and whether that constitutes aggression
Pushing an onlooker out of the way to save a drowning child
Property disputes (past, present, and future)
Animals

Good Lord, ok let's get to mentally healthy human adult self-ownership first.

It might be that some of those grey areas are not moral issues. I'll confess I haven't pondered them all to an exhaustive level. Like I said, I never really considered whether or not we have an obligation to other people (save our children) and I kinda think we don't just based on our discussion last week. Let's go through this. It will take a while.

By all means.....If I put two or three premises together into a conclusion and you disagree let me know.

And what makes you think, in any way, that I wouldn't let you know? 

[Mountaineer]

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong.

6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

7. A statement of opinion about a fact is not an opinion, it's a weak-form statement of fact, like trying to have your cake and eat it to. Even though the person claims to be stating their opinion....they in fact can be wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an opinion, that's BS.

K,

What is your plan, if any, to address "premise 0" suggestion and the comments a couple of us made re. 1 through 4 earlier in this thread?  I thought you were going to go for "buy-in" before proceeding with additional premises.  Did I misunderstand?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong.

6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

7. A statement of opinion about a fact is not an opinion, it's a weak-form statement of fact, like trying to have your cake and eat it to. Even though the person claims to be stating their opinion....they in fact can be wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an opinion, that's BS.

K,

What is your plan, if any, to address "premise 0" suggestion and the comments a couple of us made re. 1 through 4 earlier in this thread?  I thought you were going to go for "buy-in" before proceeding with additional premises.  Did I misunderstand?

... Mountaineer

What did I miss? I tried to respond to a few of them and I think other people like PS and moda and l2 did as well.

What is the dissagreement?

I was occupied all weekend.

I'm trying to limit it to 2-3 things per day or maybe every two days so people can weigh in.

[Pointedstick]

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong.

6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

7. A statement of opinion about a fact is not an opinion, it's a weak-form statement of fact, like trying to have your cake and eat it to. Even though the person claims to be stating their opinion....they in fact can be wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an opinion, that's BS.

I think I can agree with all those.

Me too.

[Kshartle]

Mountaineer,

Maybe you're referring to all the discussion of society.

If that's the case, then I'll address it further in the context of the last three premises provided the more vocal members agree they are true or are silent on them. (moda has agreed so far).

I'm confident it will prove to the members who are completely open-minded that "society" is just a subjective opinion and not reality so it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that objective morality/right vs. wrong etc. exist and can be proven to exist. If "society" doesn't exist it can't believe or influence anything.

[Mountaineer]

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong.

6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong.

7. A statement of opinion about a fact is not an opinion, it's a weak-form statement of fact, like trying to have your cake and eat it to. Even though the person claims to be stating their opinion....they in fact can be wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an opinion, that's BS.

K,

What is your plan, if any, to address "premise 0" suggestion and the comments a couple of us made re. 1 through 4 earlier in this thread?  I thought you were going to go for "buy-in" before proceeding with additional premises.  Did I misunderstand?

... Mountaineer

What did I miss? I tried to respond to a few of them and I think other people like PS and moda and l2 did as well.

What is the dissagreement?

I was occupied all weekend.

I'm trying to limit it to 2-3 things per day or maybe every two days so people can weigh in.

Perhaps I missed it, but I did not see this addressed:

rickb,

I think you are on to something with rule 0. 

I realize that my worldview begins and ends with God, and your rule 0 expresses my worldview to me.  "In the beginning ..... etc."  On a deep level, I think most humans realize your rule 0 too, e.g. think of the expression "Almighty God" or the Martin Luther hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is our God". 

When I read your rule 0, the first thing that entered my mind was, I'm so very thankful that our mighty God is the source of "rightness" rather than the alternatives.  So, after pondering several of the responses to Kshartle's premises, I do not see how it is possible to keep God out of the mix if we are to come up with any sort of proof to anything - but then again, I, like Xan, do not think it is possible to logically prove "absolute right or wrong or morals" anyway, they just "are".  At some point a leap of faith is involved, whether it be faith in God, faith is self, faith in logic, faith in all the alternate creation hypotheses, faith in faith itself, or faith that there is no faith.  If others see it differently, I'm all for going on the ride to see where it ends.

... Mountaineer

or this:

May I suggest that before pursuing Kshartle's 4 premises too much further, those engaged in the discussion watch this:

http://new.livestream.com/redeemer-nyc/ ... s/45061401

... Mountaineer

or this:

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

or

Xan's earlier comments or the proposed premise 5 by rickb. 

There may be more.  I guess my question is, how do you plan to obtain "closure" on the various comments?  It seems some of the comments so far somewhat conflict with each other or just are not addressed as to whether you think they are complete BS or not.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Maybe you're referring to all the discussion of society.

If that's the case, then I'll address it further in the context of the last three premises provided the more vocal members agree they are true or are silent on them. (moda has agreed so far).

I'm confident it will prove to the members who are completely open-minded that "society" is just a subjective opinion and not reality so it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that objective morality/right vs. wrong etc. exist and can be proven to exist. If "society" doesn't exist it can't believe or influence anything.

I think he's talking about God.

For the purpose of any deductive argument, any non-proven or non-self-evident fact need-not apply.

Not that it's not a valid part of the discussion once we establish that morality has NOT been deductively proven. I just think it has to wait for Kshartle to make his deductive case first.

[Kshartle]

Mountaineer,

Maybe you're referring to all the discussion of society.

If that's the case, then I'll address it further in the context of the last three premises provided the more vocal members agree they are true or are silent on them. (moda has agreed so far).

I'm confident it will prove to the members who are completely open-minded that "society" is just a subjective opinion and not reality so it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that objective morality/right vs. wrong etc. exist and can be proven to exist. If "society" doesn't exist it can't believe or influence anything.

I think he's talking about God.

For the purpose of any deductive argument, any non-proven or non-self-evident fact need-not apply.

Not that it's not a valid part of the discussion once we establish that morality has NOT been deductively proven. I just think it has to wait for Kshartle to make his deductive case first.

I don't see what God has to do with anything I've said so far. I've addressed God. Can we all agree that:

8. Either God exists or he doesn't, independant of our opinions.
9. Whether God exists or not does not change whether reality exists. He is either a part of it or not.
10. If he exists he may have created all reality that we can perceive or can't.

Can we stick to the premises as laid out and try to dissprove them rather than pulling out personal opinions about unprovable things (opinions) and asking me to prove or dissprove them?

Stating:

1. my worldview begins and ends with God
2. I do not see how it is possible to keep God out of the mix if we are to come up with any sort of proof to anything
3. I, like Xan, do not think it is possible to logically prove "absolute right or wrong or morals" anyway, they just "are". 

are just three opinion statments. The third one is kind of funny because I'm actually trying to prove that absolute right or wrong just "is".

I'm ok Mountaineer with the assumption that God exists and he created the rest of reality. Can we not discuss whether or not a tree exists without acknowledging that God exists and created it? (I mean this sincerely not snarky).

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

I'd be careful with including God in a self-ownership assessment. If we "own the affects of our actions" when we eventually get to property, it might prove inconsistent with our own self-ownership, since god created us.

[Kshartle]

Kshartle,

I'd be careful with including God in a self-ownership assessment. If we "own the affects of our actions" when we eventually get to property, it might prove inconsistent with our own self-ownership, since god created us.

There would be no conflict Moda but I appreciate it. If creation was the only criteria for ownership then no one ever anywhere would own themselves ever until their parents and grandparents died. God wouldn't even be required to dissprove human self-ownership. 

[Kshartle]

Ohhh wait, I think what Mountaineer is getting at is that the belief that God can enter our minds and control our thoughts and actions. Is that what you meant about premise 4? I would ask if it's possible to prove this or what basis there is for that belief. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I think it's an opinion about reality that's being stated as a fact.

What is the basis for this belief?

[Mountaineer]

Guys and dolls,

I would love to continue this but I have to leave for a funeral in a couple of minutes.

Here is where I'm coming from.  I view what K wants to do is a "cycle of work".  The elements of that cycle of work are:

Purpose - why are we doing this?

Products or Outputs that if attained will achieve the purpose -

Processes used to obtain the products -

Inputs to the process -

Examples, probably bad ones, but K is the one who should do this for real, not me.

Purpose: Prove objective morality (absolute right and wrong) exists using deductive reasoning and without using religious doctrine.

Products: Agreement of those on this forum that the purpose is achieved.

Process:  * Present premises, * Discusss premises pros and cons, * Modify premises as necessary and repeat until there is agreement

Inputs: Open minds, etc.

So, on my earlier comments - ignoring the God stuff for now, there are several proposed premises from K and others that do not seem to have consensus.  My comments are intended to help K prove his premises to the best of my ability (even though I doubt it can be done).  I don't want his arguments/proof thrown out of court on some technicality that should have been addressed early in his process - i.e. for him to waste a lot of time and effort that we could have collectively avoided.

... Mountaineer

[rickb]

Mountaineer,

Maybe you're referring to all the discussion of society.

If that's the case, then I'll address it further in the context of the last three premises provided the more vocal members agree they are true or are silent on them. (moda has agreed so far).

I'm confident it will prove to the members who are completely open-minded that "society" is just a subjective opinion and not reality so it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that objective morality/right vs. wrong etc. exist and can be proven to exist. If "society" doesn't exist it can't believe or influence anything.

It is my opinion that if you end up proving society doesn't exist then it is a fact that your proof is wrong

I think you've blown off my suggested #5 a little too dismissively.

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

I think this is a fact (not an opinion).  It starts with when you are born.  The "society" you are part of includes at least your immediate family (and generally far more people than that).  Without "societal support" you would fairly immediately die as an infant.  Not only do your parents create you (in a very literal sense), but they and the larger society you are part of keep you alive (also in a very literal sense, at least for the first dozen or so years of your life - I find it hard to imagine too many 10-year olds surviving independently "in the wild" very long).

My conclusion is that your #4 (which includes "no one can literally enter our minds and control our bodies (of course we can be brainwashed but this is external activity)") needs some adjustment.  In particular, because you can't survive as a child without being part of some society (at least immediate family), you can't avoid the brainwashing that you endure at their hands (sort of a rude way to say that you become socialized somehow - which permanently affects "your" mind and how you choose to control your body).  If you object to my #5 then please argue how it is incorrect.  You have said (so far):

Society can only influence your actions, you still control them. Provided your rights (if they exist) are not violated, you completely choose your actions, even if you are influenced by others.

Society not only can, but does influence your actions - and "influence" is far too weak a word to use here.  You choose your actions in the context of a fairly large set of societal norms that you earn through the extended period of your childhood.

[Pointedstick]

Society not only can, but does influence your actions - and "influence" is far too weak a word to use here.  You choose your actions in the context of a fairly large set of societal norms that you earn through the extended period of your childhood.

I still don't see how it's relevant. I mean, my ability to fly is limited by gravity. My ability to leave my corporeal body is limited by my biology. These factors--like societal norms--are limitations on the courses of action available to me, but, again, I don't believe that such limitations in any way negate or minimize the concept of free choice. It isn't an either-or thing where you either have perfect freedom or else it's an illusion.

[moda0306]

Well we have a lot of choices available to us.

Are some peoples' choices in effect limited by their society?  Sure. In many ways. But for the purpose of morality, we are probably measuring freedom as freedom from overt force from another person, and the freedom to choose not to infringe on someone's liberty... since the very reason we're talking about morality is to help us make decisions about how to behave... Because we have that ability.

For the purposes of this debate, I'm willing to concede that we have the ability to choose whether or not to engage the world around us in different ways that don't betray laws of physics, and are influenced, though not often forcefully, by the social sphere around us.

It's not that I don't agree with you in a lot of respects, rick.... I just don't need to have that debate to dismantle Kshartle's logic around self-ownership, especially when we extend that to property.

[Kshartle]

rickb,

Is society a household? A town, a state, a country, the entire human race?

If I think it's a household, you think it's a town, Moda thinks it's a state, PS thinks it's a country and Mountaineer thinks its the entire human race, which one of us is right and which one is wrong?


Society is a convenient word we use for "other humans". It's a time-saver. I used it when I said "Society can influence your actions". That's not a completely accurate statement. More accurate would be "Other humans can influence your actions choices."

I'm not trying to dismiss easily rickb. I realize the importance of agreeing on each premise. That's why I tried to start today off getting us to agree on the difference between opinion and fact. In hindsight I should have started there.

[Kshartle]

It's not that I don't agree with you in a lot of respects, rick.... I just don't need to have that debate to dismantle Kshartle's logic around self-ownership, especially when we extend that to property.

Or to agree with it...

A more open-minded way of re-stating your last sentence is "The debate of the influence of society (other people) does not invalidate the premise that people ultimately choose their actions.