Proving Morality

[moda0306]

And I am fully aware that my "sky" and "dirt" analogies are ONLY useful to the extent the illustrate a difference between another type of assertion... I think people get what I mean ... when I explain a "moral ought" (you ought to save that child), to a non-moral ought (you ought to plant those seeds in dirt).

Can you imagine what would happen if philosophers were to write a dictionary?

I can't even imagine...

I get it!  Dirt is blue and the sky is heavier than dirt!  Finally ...... 

Seriously, I left out a "not" when stating my question to K ... I do NOT remember him answering my question about the stake in the ground.    This is the second error I've made this decade. 

And for that dictionary:  How about one co-written by philosophers and theologians? 

... Mountaineer

Regarding that dictionary, all I have to say is:

I don't really know what you mean with the stake in the ground... could you elaborate on that a bit? 

I think what you're saying is "what moral truth are you going to prove," and I have a feeling it's going to include two main items:

1) Universally (objectively) Preferred States
2) Universal adherence to those states... as in universal not to just yourself, but to EVERYONE.

But IDK what you're asking with much certainty.

[Kshartle]

But IDK what you're asking with much certainty.

Neither am I that's why I responded with I don't know what to say.

Can you (Mountaineer) give me an answer of an acceptable answer so I know what you're getting at? I don't understand the horizontal vs. vertical stuff. 

[Mountaineer]

And I am fully aware that my "sky" and "dirt" analogies are ONLY useful to the extent the illustrate a difference between another type of assertion... I think people get what I mean ... when I explain a "moral ought" (you ought to save that child), to a non-moral ought (you ought to plant those seeds in dirt).

Can you imagine what would happen if philosophers were to write a dictionary?

I can't even imagine...

I get it!  Dirt is blue and the sky is heavier than dirt!  Finally ...... 

Seriously, I left out a "not" when stating my question to K ... I do NOT remember him answering my question about the stake in the ground.    This is the second error I've made this decade. 

And for that dictionary:  How about one co-written by philosophers and theologians? 

... Mountaineer

Regarding that dictionary, all I have to say is:

I don't really know what you mean with the stake in the ground... could you elaborate on that a bit? 

I think what you're saying is "what moral truth are you going to prove," and I have a feeling it's going to include two main items:

1) Universally (objectively) Preferred States
2) Universal adherence to those states... as in universal not to just yourself, but to EVERYONE.

But IDK what you're asking with much certainty.

moda,

My question to Kshartle:  "What is your stake in the ground by which you are measuring and judging?"

Here is what I am trying to convey.  The stake is the external reference point from which one measures.  Some examples:

Magnetic north (the stake).  In the northern hemisphere, one can use a compass to indicate the direction one needs to go to get to magnetic north.

North pole (the stake).  One can use a specific gps receiver with an exact capability of precision and gps satelites to determine where one is and where the north pole is located within a specific + or - error.

A specific receipe book published on some date (the stake).  Use to make a good meal.

A specific dictionary published on some date (the stake).  Use to determine definitions for words.

A meter bar made of platinum kept at a specific temperature - the measuring kind (the stake).  Use to measure length, width, depth.

Specific trigonometry equations in a specifc book by a specific author (the stake).  Use to build a house.

Does that help?

The point of my question to Kshartle was to find out what his "stake" is by which he is measuring and/or judging whether his premises are "whatever".  If he says they are "correct" or "right", what is the external source he uses to assert that?  If he says they are "objective", what is the external source he uses to assert that?  If he uses the term "something" (e.g. in his premise 1) what does that "something" include or exclude?  Is an "idea" something or only "something" if it is physical?  Kshartle says "I have not discussed morality beyond saying the goal of this is to prove it exists objectively as a function of reality."  - not to appear too inept, but what the heck does that mean - is it an equation like M = f(R) and the answer is something physical (i.e. objective), and by that statement, I mean what does it mean that all of us on this forum would very specifically agree to?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

But IDK what you're asking with much certainty.

Neither am I that's why I responded with I don't know what to say.

Can you (Mountaineer) give me an answer of an acceptable answer so I know what you're getting at? I don't understand the horizontal vs. vertical stuff. 

K & M,

I think what we're trying to accomplish here is to decide, first off, if an "ought" is ever fundamental to reality... and more-so whether a "moral" ought is.

If it can't be proven, there is no stake in the ground.  It's just a hypothesis.

If it can, the stake in the ground will be proof that moral behavior is the "correct" choice and is FUNDAMENTAL to reality.  Of course, to dig a bit deeper, I tend to think you will have to prove that a VALUE-system or value itself is fundamental to reality, because I don't think you can build an "ought" argument without a value atop which to place your decision-conclusion.

Am I just rambling or is this useful?

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I think it is "deductive reasoning."  Organized deductive reasoning is the best assertion-measurement tool we have, when combined with empirical evidence/proof.  It has rules that help us acquire truth, or at least show that we haven't acquired a certain truth, yet, and what we are missing.

Now definitions within it are difficult sometimes because none of us are philosophers.  I'm sure this debate was had to an astonishing degree of similarity in like 1400 or something. 

But definitions are just something that have to get worked out along the way.  Because we have to work out the metal to make the measuring stick with doesn't mean the measuring stick is bad... if you know what I mean.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

I think it is "deductive reasoning."  Organized deductive reasoning is the best assertion-measurement tool we have, when combined with empirical evidence/proof.  It has rules that help us acquire truth, or at least show that we haven't acquired a certain truth, yet, and what we are missing.

Now definitions within it are difficult sometimes because none of us are philosophers.  I'm sure this debate was had to an astonishing degree of similarity in like 1400 or something. 

But definitions are just something that have to get worked out along the way.  Because we have to work out the metal to make the measuring stick with doesn't mean the measuring stick is bad... if you know what I mean.

moda and Kshartle,

If deductive reasoning is the "stake in the ground" I think I understand why I'm having such a struggle.  It is that deductive reasoning does not fully address all the ways one determines truth or gains knowledge - it leaves out experience and revelation.  A child cannot learn to walk by using deductive reasoning.  One cannot understand God (oops, sorry for bringing Him in to the conversation) without revelation.  Thus, proving morality using only logic is to me like trying to build a rocket with only wood.  I think I'll just be quiet now and watch the sandbox for a while while you kitties play.

And to address Kshartle's question about the Two Kingdoms here is a link:
    http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=869 
but I don't think it is appropriate to discuss further in this thread - it belongs in the religion thread.  Warning, there is quite a bit of material presented.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

"In accordance with reality" is too damn vague.  Everything we do is "in accordance with reality" because it is REAL that we did it.  If our INTERPRETATION of reality is incorrect, which it often is, then actions (insofar as they are decision conclusions) can be incorrect if based on those interpretations, but we have to structure that properly and not just hand wave it as true... we have to put our "decision" into a logical statement to decide whether it is "invalid" or "unsound."

If you try to breathe underwater you acting a in manner not in accordance with reality, the reality that you can't breathe underwater fish-man!

You are philosophizing your brains out. If I try to fly by flapping my wings arms I am not acting in accordance with reality even though I am acting. The reality is I can't fly by flapping my wings arms. All I can do is flap my wings arms. So yes, there is intent of course. There is intent behind every decision we make of our own accord. That's ultimately what we are discussing here. Decisions to act or not. Of course intent is included by default.

[Xan]

I think the "stake" in this case is actually the premises.

Deductive reasoning always begins by assuming certain unprovable premises.  It can be used to prove things when the reasoning is sound AND when all the premises are agreed on.

Typically one would try to limit the number of premises, since the more premises, the less useful the proof.  Kshartle is taking the opposite approach: snowballing us with a bunch of useless and vague premises.  His proof, if and when it ever comes, will not be worth much.

[moda0306]

"In accordance with reality" is too damn vague.  Everything we do is "in accordance with reality" because it is REAL that we did it.  If our INTERPRETATION of reality is incorrect, which it often is, then actions (insofar as they are decision conclusions) can be incorrect if based on those interpretations, but we have to structure that properly and not just hand wave it as true... we have to put our "decision" into a logical statement to decide whether it is "invalid" or "unsound."

If you try to breathe underwater you acting a in manner not in accordance with reality, the reality that you can't breathe underwater fish-man!

You are philosophizing your brains out. If I try to fly by flapping my wings arms I am not acting in accordance with reality even though I am acting. The reality is I can't fly by flapping my wings arms. All I can do is flap my wings arms. So yes, there is intent of course. There is intent behind every decision we make of our own accord. That's ultimately what we are discussing here. Decisions to act or not. Of course intent is included by default.

So the DECISION to breathe underwater is an "unsound" decision, because it involves an incorrect premise: You can breathe underwater.

If I conclude that "I ought to breathe underwater" because "I like being underwater," and "water contains oxygen," then you have an INVALID decision, because, while both premises are true, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the premise.

It's important WHY it is incorrect, in the same way it is important to measure the flows of logic effectively.

But if I misunderstand reality in a different way... If a breathe air, but believe I am breathing in "life fairies," my conclusion-decision may be "unsound," but that doesn't mean that "I ought not breathe" or that "breathing delivers no value"... it's just not proven yet that I "ought to breathe" with accurate premises.

I know you think this is academic, but it's hugely important to logical flow.

Making a decision to breathe underwater may be "incorrect" insofar that it contains invalid/unsound logic to reach a conclusion, but that doesn't conclude an opposite.  It doesn't conclude that I "ought not" to breathe underwater just because my decision to do so was bad logic. It takes a different path of logic to achieve an "ought not" than to identify an "ought" argument as "invalid" or "unsound."

Further, you have to build your logic... and with any OUGHT conclusion, you MUST have a value-statement.  Even this is not complete logic:

I WANT to live.
Drowning will kill me.
Trying to breathe underwater will cause me to drown.


Therefore, I OUGHT NOT breathe underwater.


This is NOT complete logic, unless you connect some value to decisions with one more premise:

I OUGHT to act in accordance of what I WANT for myself.


EDIT: I forgot to add... It's super important that we have to add that last premise.  Because it's yet another OUGHT connected to a value measurement that can be applied to your options.  So what I'll be looking for in your arguments is finding a way to make a value self-evident, or part of nature/reality, which I don't believe can be achieved to the degree of "proof."

[Kshartle]

So the DECISION to breathe underwater is an "unsound" decision, because it involves an incorrect premise: You can breathe underwater.

If I conclude that "I ought to breathe underwater" because "I like being underwater," and "water contains oxygen," then you have an INVALID decision, because, while both premises are true, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the premise.

It's important WHY it is incorrect, in the same way it is important to measure the flows of logic effectively.

But if I misunderstand reality in a different way... If a breathe air, but believe I am breathing in "life fairies," my conclusion-decision may be "unsound," but that doesn't mean that "I ought not breathe" or that "breathing delivers no value"... it's just not proven yet that I "ought to breathe" with accurate premises.

I know you think this is academic, but it's hugely important to logical flow.

Making a decision to breathe underwater may be "incorrect" insofar that it contains invalid/unsound logic to reach a conclusion, but that doesn't conclude an opposite.  It doesn't conclude that I "ought not" to breathe underwater just because my decision to do so was bad logic.

Moda.....

You can't breathe underwater. You "ought not" try, whatever your beliefs. Yes the assumption is you want to survive and want to acheive your goals.

That is always the assumption. You cannot want to not acheive your goals or they wouldn't be your goals. You always want to do things that get you what you want or whatever. I don't see how that link can be broken. The definition of a goal is what you want to acheive so this doesn't need to be broken out. That is the concept.

As Tech pointed out a person who wishes to die has no use for values since none are required to submit. If the argument is "maybe I want to drown", the response is "then go drown I'll talk with a person who wants to live". They shouldn't be difficult to find.

Of course that might be just another worthless, vague premise that I'm using to snowball you.

14 of these 17 points so far are just so we can have a productive discussion of the basics. They may seem vague and useless to people who have already made up their mind they will reject any conclusion but I think they are all important, even if just so we can understand statements of fact vs. statements of opinion.

Some of us are not as advanced as others and have to work this out rather than just rely on an ancient document written by guys with ten wives and slaves to tell us how we should live.

[Xan]

So your morality's position on suicide, assisted or otherwise, is... undefined?

[Mountaineer]

14 of these 17 points so far are just so we can have a productive discussion of the basics. They may seem vague and useless to people who have already made up their mind they will reject any conclusion but I think they are all important, even if just so we can understand statements of fact vs. statements of opinion.

Some of us are not as advanced as others and have to work this out rather than just rely on an ancient document written by guys with ten wives and slaves to tell us how we should live.

And you have not made up your mind re. your last sentence?  My "hypocrisy warning" alarm just went off big time!

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

So the DECISION to breathe underwater is an "unsound" decision, because it involves an incorrect premise: You can breathe underwater.

If I conclude that "I ought to breathe underwater" because "I like being underwater," and "water contains oxygen," then you have an INVALID decision, because, while both premises are true, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the premise.

It's important WHY it is incorrect, in the same way it is important to measure the flows of logic effectively.

But if I misunderstand reality in a different way... If a breathe air, but believe I am breathing in "life fairies," my conclusion-decision may be "unsound," but that doesn't mean that "I ought not breathe" or that "breathing delivers no value"... it's just not proven yet that I "ought to breathe" with accurate premises.

I know you think this is academic, but it's hugely important to logical flow.

Making a decision to breathe underwater may be "incorrect" insofar that it contains invalid/unsound logic to reach a conclusion, but that doesn't conclude an opposite.  It doesn't conclude that I "ought not" to breathe underwater just because my decision to do so was bad logic.

Moda.....

You can't breathe underwater. You "ought not" try, whatever your beliefs. Yes the assumption is you want to survive and want to acheive your goals.

That is always the assumption. You cannot want to not acheive your goals or they wouldn't be your goals. You always want to do things that get you what you want or whatever. I don't see how that link can be broken. The definition of a goal is what you want to acheive so this doesn't need to be broken out. That is the concept.

As Tech pointed out a person who wishes to die has no use for values since none are required to submit. If the argument is "maybe I want to drown", the response is "then go drown I'll talk with a person who wants to live". They shouldn't be difficult to find.

Of course that might be just another worthless, vague premise that I'm using to snowball you.

14 of these 17 points so far are just so we can have a productive discussion of the basics. They may seem vague and useless to people who have already made up their mind they will reject any conclusion but I think they are all important, even if just so we can understand statements of fact vs. statements of opinion.

Some of us are not as advanced as others and have to work this out rather than just rely on an ancient document written by guys with ten wives and slaves to tell us how we should live.

I had a good retort to this ready to go... Then the site collapsed (again).

I'll have to re-retort later.

[Kshartle]

14 of these 17 points so far are just so we can have a productive discussion of the basics. They may seem vague and useless to people who have already made up their mind they will reject any conclusion but I think they are all important, even if just so we can understand statements of fact vs. statements of opinion.

Some of us are not as advanced as others and have to work this out rather than just rely on an ancient document written by guys with ten wives and slaves to tell us how we should live.

And you have not made up your mind re. your last sentence?  My "hypocrisy warning" alarm just went off big time!

... Mountaineer

I beg your pardon?

[Kshartle]

I had a good retort to this ready to go... Then the site collapsed (again).

I'll have to re-retort later.

It's exhausting to re-write perfection.

[moda0306]

So the DECISION to breathe underwater is an "unsound" decision, because it involves an incorrect premise: You can breathe underwater.

If I conclude that "I ought to breathe underwater" because "I like being underwater," and "water contains oxygen," then you have an INVALID decision, because, while both premises are true, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the premise.

It's important WHY it is incorrect, in the same way it is important to measure the flows of logic effectively.

But if I misunderstand reality in a different way... If a breathe air, but believe I am breathing in "life fairies," my conclusion-decision may be "unsound," but that doesn't mean that "I ought not breathe" or that "breathing delivers no value"... it's just not proven yet that I "ought to breathe" with accurate premises.

I know you think this is academic, but it's hugely important to logical flow.

Making a decision to breathe underwater may be "incorrect" insofar that it contains invalid/unsound logic to reach a conclusion, but that doesn't conclude an opposite.  It doesn't conclude that I "ought not" to breathe underwater just because my decision to do so was bad logic.

Moda.....

You can't breathe underwater. You "ought not" try, whatever your beliefs. Yes the assumption is you want to survive and want to acheive your goals.

That is always the assumption. You cannot want to not acheive your goals or they wouldn't be your goals. You always want to do things that get you what you want or whatever. I don't see how that link can be broken. The definition of a goal is what you want to acheive so this doesn't need to be broken out. That is the concept.

As Tech pointed out a person who wishes to die has no use for values since none are required to submit. If the argument is "maybe I want to drown", the response is "then go drown I'll talk with a person who wants to live". They shouldn't be difficult to find.

Of course that might be just another worthless, vague premise that I'm using to snowball you.

14 of these 17 points so far are just so we can have a productive discussion of the basics. They may seem vague and useless to people who have already made up their mind they will reject any conclusion but I think they are all important, even if just so we can understand statements of fact vs. statements of opinion.

Some of us are not as advanced as others and have to work this out rather than just rely on an ancient document written by guys with ten wives and slaves to tell us how we should live.

K,

You can't just assume a value, especially if you want to universalize it and have it be a function of REALITY instead of just a subjective Premise that you're inserting into a decision equation for yourself.

Tech's comment was basically an ad hominem disguised as logic. Human-beings tend to value different things.  That doesn't mean that the most popular of these values is actually objectively fundamental to reality... they could be subjective preferences that individuals have.

Unless you want to define "ought" as "a behavioral imperative to maximize what we individually value most," then you haven't built your logic correctly.  However, we might not always think about it so overtly, but oughts ALWAYS have to have a value-variable, and those values aren't always the same.

But you're certainly not getting that specific with your definition of "ought."  It's simply a decision-guiding operative word, but guiding decisions from different options HAS to have some sort of value-measurement.  If you want to include in your argument some defining principals around 1) what those values are, and 2) whether they are universally binding, then go ahead and try to, but just assuming that because "if someone wants to die (not what the arguer is asking... they are asking "what if someone wants to die?"), they should just rid us of their presence and I can debate someone who wants to live."

To clarify via example: A police-man "ought" to pull someone over if he sees them going 100 mph on a highway (his assumed duty to protect other drivers and uphold the law, which he has contractually agreed to with the "owner" of the road), given one subjective measure of value.  But he "ought not" to do so given another (the NAP as you see it).

So I think we need to spend sometime hashing out these decision-driving-values that exist within "ought" conclusions.  I don't necessarily mean "moral" values, yet.  But just value judgement in general.

For instance, I can't PROVE it, but I believe human happiness to be intrinsically more valuable than human suffering.  I SEE this as fundamental to the human race (and beyond that, to a degree), but I can't PROVE that.  I have to take it on (gasp) faith. 

[Kshartle]

Moda what is a goal?

[moda0306]

Moda what is a goal?

A desired outcome in a given scenario... at least this is how I THINK we can define it for the purposes of consistent definitions in this debate.

[Mountaineer]

So I think we need to spend sometime hashing out these decision-driving-values that exist within "ought" conclusions.  I don't necessarily mean "moral" values, yet.  But just value judgement in general.

For instance, I can't PROVE it, but I believe human happiness to be intrinsically more valuable than human suffering.  I SEE this as fundamental to the human race (and beyond that, to a degree), but I can't PROVE that.  I have to take it on (gasp) faith.

I respectfully disagree that happiness is intrinsically more valuable than human suffering and fundamental to the human race (and beyond) - and I will not even bring in the religious perspective.  I would agree that it  intrinsically "feels better".  Drinking a pint of whiskey might make an alcoholic  "feel better" or make him happy for the moment but I do not not think that the alcohol induced happiness is fundamentally more valuable than an alcoholic who is suffering because he is watching a non-alcoholic person enjoy his margarita.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

So I think we need to spend sometime hashing out these decision-driving-values that exist within "ought" conclusions.  I don't necessarily mean "moral" values, yet.  But just value judgement in general.

For instance, I can't PROVE it, but I believe human happiness to be intrinsically more valuable than human suffering.  I SEE this as fundamental to the human race (and beyond that, to a degree), but I can't PROVE that.  I have to take it on (gasp) faith.

I respectfully disagree that happiness is intrinsically more valuable than human suffering and fundamental to the human race (and beyond) - and I will not even bring in the religious perspective.  I would agree that it  intrinsically "feels better".  Drinking a pint of whiskey might make an alcoholic  "feel better" or make him happy for the moment but I do not not think that the alcohol induced happiness is fundamentally more valuable than an alcoholic who is suffering because he is watching a non-alcoholic person enjoy his margarita.

... Mountaineer

That's fine... we can discuss that later... neither of us can really prove our positions anyway.  Sounds like an engaging discussion to have!

[moda0306]

If I am to accept your conclusion that our individual "goal" (or "want" or "desire") is to be the ASSUMED value when making a decision, then, unless you can attach another premise that includes something that tells us what our goals OUGHT to be, we are basically engaging in proving moral relativism.  If I have little care for others, what helps me achieve MY WANTS, and what helps me achieve moral behavior, are vastly different.

[Kshartle]

If I am to accept your conclusion that our individual "goal" (or "want" or "desire") is to be the ASSUMED value when making a decision, then, unless you can attach another premise that includes something that tells us what our goals OUGHT to be, we are basically engaging in proving moral relativism.  If I have little care for others, what helps me achieve MY WANTS, and what helps me achieve moral behavior, are vastly different.

This is jumping way ahead to the morality stuff.

Do you agree that that the achievment of goals (whatever they may be) is and should always be the assumption for what humans are doing when they are acting/makeing a decision?

I don't see how it can be any other way.

I will confess I need to read back to see why we are even going down this road.

[moda0306]

If I am to accept your conclusion that our individual "goal" (or "want" or "desire") is to be the ASSUMED value when making a decision, then, unless you can attach another premise that includes something that tells us what our goals OUGHT to be, we are basically engaging in proving moral relativism.  If I have little care for others, what helps me achieve MY WANTS, and what helps me achieve moral behavior, are vastly different.

This is jumping way ahead to the morality stuff.

Do you agree that that the achievment of goals (whatever they may be) is and should always be the assumption for what humans are doing when they are acting/makeing a decision?

I don't see how it can be any other way.

I will confess I need to read back to see why we are even going down this road.

Absolutely.  A goal/value/desire HAS to be part of the framework. 

However, I would say that you have to have one more premise to PROVE that a DECISION is correct, and that is a linkage between the DESIRE to the appropriateness of action.  Desire is NOT automatically linked to action, IMO, without another premise.  Because my personal desire might conflict with OTHER considerations.  It is not self-evident that if I DESIRE to be rich, that I should rob a bank because I KNOW I won't get caught.

I guess I'm willing to accept the premise, for now, that the desire NECESSARILY, when combine with interpretation of reality, determine the action we "ought" to take.  But to me, there's an implicit "ought" premise in there that we are not recognizing, and I must (for the sake of truth), reserve the right to recognize it.... that we OUGHT to do things that maximize our desires.

I see how you can think that this is buried within the word "ought," but it is BECAUSE I have a believe in being moral that I believe this assumption might be flawed.

Is that fair?  I give a pass to move ahead, but I register my "concern" that MAYBE we're not properly recognizing the reality of the link between our desires, and a conclusion about what we OUGHT to do.  I know that's not very scientific of me, but I think we can build on this structure while reserving ourselves the right to come back and revisit it, if need be.

[Mountaineer]

Goal is not the same as desire and/or want.  The sinful me might desire to have a very hottypants relationship with your wife but my goal is not to accomplish my desire.  Be very careful with choice of words and agreeing to equivalence.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

I guess I'm willing to accept the premise, for now, that the desire NECESSARILY, when combine with interpretation of reality, determine the action we "ought" to take.

I don't recall ever saying this.

I have said "We ought to do the right thing".

The right thing has always been "in accorrdance with what is what is true/correct/fact" - whatever is written above.

We haven't determined what that is and i haven't said that it's doing what acheives your goals and is tied to an accurate read of reality. I don't think that's right.

Let's first agree on "We ought to do the right thing".

After that we can then determine what the right thing is. Doing so beforehand will bias people into refusing to agree that we have an imperative to do the right thing even if they agree with what that is.

So.......Let's first agree on "We ought to do the right thing".


I'll write up why this is true in MS word so I don't lose it to a site crash (seems to be getting frequent).