Proving Morality

[moda0306]

Analogy. Overload.

[Mountaineer]

Analogy. Overload.

Hey there moda, come soar with the eagles and boldly go.  That whale stuff on the bottom of the ocean is for the bottom dwelling, scum suckers.  Rise above and FLY!

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Right now it is an iceberg ... much of it underwater and invisible, floating aimlessly in a sea of sharks.

I can get on board with the "floating in water" part, but iceberg wasn't the first thing that came to mind.

Hmm… icebergs… things that float in water… I'm having trouble making the connection. Could you maybe spell it out more clearly?

[Pointedstick]

What a fascinating article, TennPaGa. And I highly recommend The Righteous Mind. I read it a year or two ago and found it to be right on the money.

Just to prove that I really am a cold, emotionless libertarian robot, let me say that it is a highly useful book in understanding what makes others tick politically so that they may be more easily convinced or marginalized! Most people are surprised and intrigued when someone who holds substantially different beliefs from them appears to nonetheless understand their concerns. Liberals in particular have a hard time avoiding being drawn to you! Several of my liberal co-workers constantly engage me in political discussions out of sheer bewilderment that I understand the foundations of the liberal mind but do not share it, for example. I think this ties into the observation that hardcore liberals have the hardest time imagining other viewpoints. For them, it is absolutely inconceivable that an intelligent person would not be a liberal, whereas conservatives seem to be able to conceive of the reasons why somebody would be a liberal, but they just think those reasons are stupid and people who hold them are wusses who probably weren't hit enough as kids.

[moda0306]

A look into the libertarian mind: understanding libertarian morality Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians

Interesting paper.  I liked this bit near the end:

A related way to describe the links between personality and morality is found in Rozin's [10] description of the moralization of preferences. Libertarians' preferences about how to live their lives may have been transformed into a moral value — the value of liberty — in the same way that vegetarians have been found to moralize their eating preferences [78] or non-smokers moralize their aversion to smoke [79]. From a social intuitionist perspective [8], this process is no different from the psychological comfort that liberals attain in moralizing their empathic responses (e.g. [15]) or that social conservatives attain in moralizing their connection to their groups (e.g. [43]). For those who self-identify as libertarian in our sample, their dispositional and motivational profiles all point toward one supreme moral principle: individual liberty.

Jonathan Haidt (one of the authors of the paper above) has some other thought-provoking research and writings on morality.

Came across the following article today on Volokh Conspiracy:

Jonathan Haidt on Psychology and Politics
-- Todd Zywicki

So what’s Haidt’s argument? His basic idea is twofold. First, that people do not rationally choose their ideologies. You do not come into the political arena as a blank slate and then just examine all the moral and consequential arguments for different policies and pick the one that is most “correct.”? Instead, you come into the political arena with subconscious, largely unexamined psychological beliefs. Initially for Haidt what he focused on was ideas of “disgust.”? Over time that has broadened and he describes five key vectors or values of psychological morality: (1) care/harm, (2) fairness, (3) loyalty, (4) authority, and (5) sanctity. Haidt finds in his research that self-described “conservatives”? tend to value all five vectors of morality (as he defines them). Liberals, by contrast, place a high value on “care”? and “fairness”? and a lower value on loyalty, authority, and sanctity. On the two values that conservatives and liberals both value (care and fairness) they do not define those terms the same way, although they both value them according to their different definitions.

The second part of Haidt’s argument is that once you have subconsciously chosen your ideology (you don’t rationally choose what the important factors are) you also do not rationally and objectively weigh the evidence as to whether your ideological views are “correct.”? Instead, people tend to subconsciously sift the information that they take in: you tend to overvalue evidence that supports your predispositions and dismiss evidence that is inconsistent with it. As a result, “evidence”? becomes self-justifying.
                    .........
I am not fully persuaded that the precise list of five values that Haidt identifies are necessarily the right list. I’m also not persuaded that they aren’t, but they don’t all seem uniformly persuasive to me. And indeed, in the book Haidt identifies a sixth value: the Liberty/Oppression value. This is not part of the original six, but Haidt says that it provides an explanation for why libertarians and conservatives tend to affiliate with each other. The question I had after reading that, however, is whether that sixth value actually swallows the other five, and so there really is only one key vector. To Haidt, I would add an additional hypothesis, which is that while the Liberty/Oppression axis appears probative for the libertarian-conservative overlap, it plays out differently for libertarians. My sense is that while libertarians root liberty in the individual, conservatives implicitly see the family as the fundamental moral/analytical unit and so “liberty”? essentially means more about family autonomy than individual autonomy.  The larger point, however, is that I think that the central thrust of the research program–that there are some sorts subconscious psychological assumptions underlying all this, seems right to me.
                    .........
One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt’s work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative”? and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.”? In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.
                    .........
In that article (TPG: the one mentioned by doodle), Haidt applies the same tools to self-described libertarians and concludes that there are distinct psychological correlates to to libertarian morality that distinguished libertarians from both liberals and conservatives. Perhaps most striking is the libertarians emphasis on systematization. Now this, I think, is an important insight. For it explains a point that seems to be highly distinctive to libertarians: the recognition by libertarians, often with a high degree of pride, that libertarianism offers the only “consistent”? ideology and that is one of the most compelling aspects of it. Well here’s Haidt’s point: Most people simply do not care whether their ideological views are consistent. For most people (liberals and conservatives), consistency is simply not a relevant variable or axis for determining what you believe or your ideological worldview. This explains, I think, the frequent bewilderment that libertarians face when they try to persuade someone to change their mind about, say, a social policy because it is “inconsistent”? with their economic policy beliefs. It simply is not a relevant argument to them. This has obvious implications for communicating libertarian ideas to non-libertarians (i.e., the overwhelming number of people in America!).

Which raises a related point: Haidt finds that libertarians place a much higher emphasis on rationality and logical reasoning than do other ideologies. But that doesn’t mean that libertarian beliefs are less-motivated by unexamined psychological predispositions than other ideologies. Again, take the idea that libertarians believe that “consistency”? is a relevant variable for measuring the moral worth or persuasiveness of an ideology. But that is not a self-justifying claim: one still must ask why “consistency”? matters or should matter. So while libertarians may place a higher stated value on rational argumentation, that does not mean that libertarian premises are any less built upon subjective psychological foundations.

Haidt has a book out called The Righteous Mind : Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, which I've been meaning to read.

Wow. Great stuff.

[Mountaineer]

What a fascinating article, TennPaGa. And I highly recommend The Righteous Mind. I read it a year or two ago and found it to be right on the money.

Just to prove that I really am a cold, emotionless libertarian robot, let me say that it is a highly useful book in understanding what makes others tick politically so that they may be more easily convinced or marginalized! Most people are surprised and intrigued when someone who holds substantially different beliefs from them appears to nonetheless understand their concerns. Liberals in particular have a hard time avoiding being drawn to you! Several of my liberal co-workers constantly engage me in political discussions out of sheer bewilderment that I understand the foundations of the liberal mind but do not share it, for example. I think this ties into the observation that hardcore liberals have the hardest time imagining other viewpoints. For them, it is absolutely inconceivable that an intelligent person would not be a liberal, whereas conservatives seem to be able to conceive of the reasons why somebody would be a liberal, but they just think those reasons are stupid and people who hold them are wusses who probably weren't hit enough as kids.

On the money!  Great article and PS commentary.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

K... sorry if I'm pre-judging your future arguments.  I'm trying to get folks here to rid ourselves of this will to challenge certain premises that to reject would be undermining the ability for us to ever PROVE anything at all.

Yes note the first premise.

Look, 80% of everything I've said so far is completely obvious and should require no explanation or even mention except that everyone is biased towards a certain outcome to protect their worldviews. The fragility of the egos causes the weirdest nonsensical rejection of even the most obvious concepts (I exist) as provable. It's annoying. The only way I could see to get to the end successfully is to have bite-size peices that people must either agree with or look foolish. Then they can be combined into larger concepts. The problem with laying it all out is that people's egos and bias will prevent them from admitting the bite-size peices are correct. They will dig in and repeat a mantra "you haven't proven it, because 2+2 might not be 4."  That's why I want everyone to agree on 2+2=4 first, so there is no way out.

It's doesn't matter anyway it seems. If I put 2+2=4 no doubt there would 3-4 people who would say that's a big leap of faith and we'd need to spend 5 exhausting pages on it, purely out of absurd obstructionism.

Ok, I'll not waste time on what I consider ridiculous and obviously wrong criticisms. I will finish responding to Desert and M and then move on much quicker.

Do you agree with my explanations of your objections M? Are any of them still unclear?

BTW - anyone else can help explain stuff. If for example I say "statements about facts can be proven wrong" and the objection is "facts are never wrong", it would be great to have a reader step in and say the objection is a missunderstanding. It would save me a lot of effort if you guys that understand and agree can help clear up confusion.

BTW #2 - Every single person on this board knows and believes we exist. You express your beleif every time you post and use the word I so let's not pretend this is a valid argument ever, it's silly.

[Mountaineer]

K,

You asked me "Do you agree with my explanations of your objections M? Are any of them still unclear?" in your most recent post.

I have removed statements that you addressed satisfactorily from my perspective.  The ones that remain are the ones I do not agree with or do not understand.  Note that I've added additional comments in red that may not have been there before.  Not to be too picky, but it would be helpful if you would address all of them in one post, i.e. not scattered about individually.  Use a different color font or something to identify your comments.  It is easier for us old guys to see the big picture and not fragments so as to better understand what you are saying.

Many of my comments are to illustrate your imprecise use of language; I may take something one way, someone else another, and both of us will read something different than what you intend.  That has already happened several times from my viewpoint.  From my perspective (opinion, reality, fact to me?), it would be extremely helpful if you limit your words to dictionary definitions and use very precise terminology.  I intend this comment to be purposeful.  If you are startlingly clear in your use of words and language, potential for objections later in your series (number TBD) of premises may be minimized.

... Mountaineer

2. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have conscious thoughts.  Use of the word "creature" implies there must be a "creator" .. is that your intention?

3. We are each unique individuals. No one else other person occupies the space that we are in. No one else other person can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed or threatened or pressured but this is external activity).  K, I believe you accepted my suggested change.

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie untrue, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong untrue.  To me there is a huge difference between a lie and an untruth; you indicate they are the same to you.  To me a lie is a deliberate untruth.  Untruth may or may not have malicious intent, it may just be an "honest" mistake.  Is this worth discussing further or not?  What do others think?


6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality (or is it a statement of fact and/or perception?). It Facts can not be proven wrong.  K, you said "I'm trying to point out the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact, which is constantly confused by people here."  If that is your intent, I think your original statement is unclear - would you clarify wording, preferably by using the intended word instead of "it" throughout this premise and the others?

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, just as all opinons can be proven wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an actual opinion it's a statement of belief in a fact.  (I am not sure I understand the root idea of this premise or exactly what you are driving at?  It seems to me facts are never untrue, whereas opinions may or may not be true.  Facts are always true, it is just our understanding of or about the fact may or may not be correct.)  This is still unclear to me on what it is exactly you are trying to state.  It is not helpful to me when you use colloquial slang (e.g. cake and eat it too) to define your concept when extremely precise words and dictionary definitions would be more appropriate for a proof.

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

The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct.
The definition of “wrong”? is: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
manner - a way of doing or being
truth - the property of being in accord with fact or reality

Your definitions of "right" and "wrong" are A definition, not THE definition.  I believe right and wrong have moral connotations (at least in my dictionary) and thus require an external reference point to determine if they are true or not.

Fact, truth, correctness and the like ("and the like" makes the statement nebulous) are objective statements about reality. That doesn’t preclude opinion. Even opinions can be fact, truth, correct etc. as long as they aren’t lies untrue. If I really prefer chocolate then it’s a fact I prefer chocolate and true that I prefer chocolate.  This last sentence has a time component that you have not discussed; I may prefer chocolate today and not tomorrow - thus, it is not universally a true or factual statement.

11. given the above definitions: if a DECISION is "in a way of doing or being not in conformity with the property of being in accord with fact or reality" ...... it is objectively incorrect/wrong I think your statement mixes truth and moral relativity, thus is not universally true without an external reference point, i.e. source of truth.

13. There is no such thing as un-owned property. Something isn't property unless it is owned.  By humans, animals, God, goldfish, an amoeba, alien beings?
  Are you using the term "property" in the physical sense or in the "attribute" sense or both?  For the physical sense definition, are you limiting your definition to earth, or do you include our solar system, galaxy, universe?  For the attribute sense, are you limiting attributes to humans?

14. Ownership of property is a term used to describe the state whereby some person (see above for other entities that may or may not have ownership claims) (let's leave out animals for the moment please) has first claim on the use of or possesion of something.* That is, if there are multiple individuals trying to use or posses the same thing at the same time, if one has a higher claim than the all others we describe that state as ownership.  What does "higher claim" specifically mean and who or what determines the definition of higher claim?

* - I realize some of you might not believe this exists in reality. I'm putting forward initially that the idea or concept is described as ownership. We'll work on the rest.

[moda0306]

K... sorry if I'm pre-judging your future arguments.  I'm trying to get folks here to rid ourselves of this will to challenge certain premises that to reject would be undermining the ability for us to ever PROVE anything at all.

Yes note the first premise.

Look, 80% of everything I've said so far is completely obvious and should require no explanation or even mention except that everyone is biased towards a certain outcome to protect their worldviews. The fragility of the egos causes the weirdest nonsensical rejection of even the most obvious concepts (I exist) as provable. It's annoying. The only way I could see to get to the end successfully is to have bite-size peices that people must either agree with or look foolish. Then they can be combined into larger concepts. The problem with laying it all out is that people's egos and bias will prevent them from admitting the bite-size peices are correct. They will dig in and repeat a mantra "you haven't proven it, because 2+2 might not be 4."  That's why I want everyone to agree on 2+2=4 first, so there is no way out.

It's doesn't matter anyway it seems. If I put 2+2=4 no doubt there would 3-4 people who would say that's a big leap of faith and we'd need to spend 5 exhausting pages on it, purely out of absurd obstructionism.

Ok, I'll not waste time on what I consider ridiculous and obviously wrong criticisms. I will finish responding to Desert and M and then move on much quicker.

Do you agree with my explanations of your objections M? Are any of them still unclear?

BTW - anyone else can help explain stuff. If for example I say "statements about facts can be proven wrong" and the objection is "facts are never wrong", it would be great to have a reader step in and say the objection is a missunderstanding. It would save me a lot of effort if you guys that understand and agree can help clear up confusion.

BTW #2 - Every single person on this board knows and believes we exist. You express your beleif every time you post and use the word I so let's not pretend this is a valid argument ever, it's silly.

K,

I should have stepped in more with some of these... I'm so busy selfishly looking at areas where I might disagree with you that I haven't been very good at defending where others are attacking.

But I think, with a few quite pesky exceptions, yourself, PS, and I, (along maybe with some others) had accepted premises and were moving along well.  I think on the two ends (Mountaineer as a Christian, and doodle as a Nihilist), they are focusing on some really metaphysical areas that just simply don't belong in a more grounded, empirical discussion.  This isn't to say that God or us all being in the Matrix might not screw all this up, but I think we have to take SOME simple physical things as truth first and see if it gets us somewhere, then come back and see if the existence of "God" or us being in the Matrix changes anything.

In other words, if we put ourselves back a couple hundred years, why worry about quantum physics if we haven't even maxed out the uses of Newtonian physics.  It's not that Einstein's work won't be valuable, but in a discussion of how quickly a 4 lb anvil will fall from the top of a 50-foot building at sea level, we don't need to know the speed of light, or question our existence, or know what a quark is.

The entire premise of proving morality is reliant on the idea that empirical, observable facts guide us to an obvious moral framework.  Our ability to interpret the world around us may be flawed, but it is all we have.  It's no different for someone who is a devout Christian hard-wired into the Holy Spirit as it is for an atheist scientist.  We are all interpreting the world with our senses, and we HAVE to be able to agree on SOME facts to move forward, otherwise we have no basis upon which to have any sort of rational discussion about anything.

Maybe "I" is a myth.

Maybe my ability to choose my actions is a myth.

Maybe we are all just one hive mind and don't realize it.

Maybe there is a God that created us.


But if we can accept that we all exist as individuals, control our actions, and interpret empirically accepted facts around us correctly, and Kshartle can USE those to prove something as still-ambiguous as morality, we will have stumbled on something pretty amazing.  Let's not cut him off at premises that we use every single day to operate in the world.  Let's wait until he tries to do something ridiculous with them .



But K... I wouldn't be scared of people "turning premises on and off." I do it all the time when I'm trying to build frameworks.  Not that I don't actually BELIEVE that a premise should be "turned off," but it is what makes logic such a slick tool.  You can, in so much more organized a manner, figure out what an argument rests on, and if an opponent wants to turn on or off a premise, they can't use that premise in their argument (or they have to include it).

For instance, if Mountaineer were to say, at the end of all this, "K, you haven't proven that we exist," then you could say, "well sure, I haven't, but you at the very least have to accept that if we DO exist, my argument is correct.  And if you are taking an action, one way or the other, you must exist, and therefore, to behave morally, must use my model."

You can USE people's instinct to turn off premises against them.  It will force them to dig deeper to discover truth, or, at the very least, come to the realization that some things just need to be taken on faith (uh oh) to even get by in the world.  "We exist as individuals and control our actions," tends to be one that I take as a Truth, even if I have to ask myself about the pureness of each one of those aspects of reality.

The ability to play with turning premises on and off (as to whether they're true) is actually a FEATURE of logical structure, not a FAULT of it.

[Kshartle]

Thanks Moda.

I tried to clear up the God stuff and Nihilisim or whatever immediately but I guess some cannot suspend it even for a moment. I just need to ignore it.

More frustrating is to have to re-explain the idenitcal objections that have already been clarified and re-clarified. I just need to ignore those also.

[moda0306]

The problem with those concepts (especially that of God), is that words just tend to have very different meanings... and while doodle is saying something so odd and ambiguous such as "what if we don't exist," it is Mountaineer believing in a more fundamental, unprovable truth, that makes all these premises have definition issues, and since God & our souls is the only true basis to reality (everything else is just physical bs around us), then it's going to be very, very difficult to have a grounded discussion of WHAT IS TRUE about existence, individuality, control, ownership, etc.

Essentially, God is the premise that just can't be shut off, and it wiggles its way into almost every premise you pose... in their eyes.

[Kshartle]

K,

You asked me "Do you agree with my explanations of your objections M? Are any of them still unclear?" in your most recent post.

I have removed statements that you addressed satisfactorily from my perspective.  The ones that remain are the ones I do not agree with or do not understand.  Note that I've added additional comments in red that may not have been there before.  Not to be too picky, but it would be helpful if you would address all of them in one post, i.e. not scattered about individually.  Use a different color font or something to identify your comments.  It is easier for us old guys to see the big picture and not fragments so as to better understand what you are saying.

Many of my comments are to illustrate your imprecise use of language; I may take something one way, someone else another, and both of us will read something different than what you intend.  That has already happened several times from my viewpoint.  From my perspective (opinion, reality, fact to me?), it would be extremely helpful if you limit your words to dictionary definitions and use very precise terminology.  I intend this comment to be purposeful.  If you are startlingly clear in your use of words and language, potential for objections later in your series (number TBD) of premises may be minimized.

... Mountaineer

2. We are living breathing creatures with the ability to have conscious thoughts.  Use of the word "creature" implies there must be a "creator" .. is that your intention? Organisim

3. We are each unique individuals. No one else other person occupies the space that we are in. No one else other person can literally enter our minds and control our bodies. (of course we can be brainwashed or threatened or pressured but this is external activity).  K, I believe you accepted my suggested change. sure

5. Opinions are subjective value statements made by individuals and cannot be proven wrong. They can be wrong, they can be a lie untrue, but another person can't prove an opinion is wrong untrue.  To me there is a huge difference between a lie and an untruth; you indicate they are the same to you.  To me a lie is a deliberate untruth.  Untruth may or may not have malicious intent, it may just be an "honest" mistake.  Is this worth discussing further or not?  What do others think? No I didn't. I said specifically that a lie is a deliberate untruth. There is a difference. It's not important here. The point is people don't understand the difference between statements of opinion and statements of facts. I wanted to explain how to tell the difference. 


6. A statement of fact is a statement about reality (or is it a statement of fact and/or perception?). It Facts can not be proven wrong.  K, you said "I'm trying to point out the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact, which is constantly confused by people here."  If that is your intent, I think your original statement is unclear - would you clarify wording, preferably by using the intended word instead of "it" throughout this premise and the others? If I say "The Earth is round. It is 90 million miles from the sun." is it clear in the 2nd sentence I'm referring to the Earth? How is that different from "A statement of fact is a statement about reality. It can be proven wrong."? It's clear that I'm referring to the subject of the first sentence when I say "it". There is nothing unclear about that. When a sentence begins with "it" or "they" it refers to the subject of the prior sentence. 

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, just as all opinons can be proven wrong. "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat" is not an actual opinion it's a statement of belief in a fact.  (I am not sure I understand the root idea of this premise or exactly what you are driving at?  It seems to me facts are never untrue, whereas opinions may or may not be true.  Facts are always true, it is just our understanding of or about the fact may or may not be correct.)  This is still unclear to me on what it is exactly you are trying to state.  It is not helpful to me when you use colloquial slang (e.g. cake and eat it too) to define your concept when extremely precise words and dictionary definitions would be more appropriate for a proof. M, how on Earth can you prove someone's opinion is wrong? I have explained the difference between statements of fact and statements of opinion so many times now.  Can someone else who understands the difference please explain it?


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

The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct.
The definition of “wrong”? is: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
manner - a way of doing or being
truth - the property of being in accord with fact or reality

Your definitions of "right" and "wrong" are A definition, not THE definition.  I believe right and wrong have moral connotations (at least in my dictionary) and thus require an external reference point to determine if they are true or not. I appreciate your comment but I am certain you are expressing something unture. 2+2 = 4. That is right. 2+2=5 is wrong. Do you really believe this is a moral issue? If you think right and wrong have moral connotations that's great. I've said over and over and over again that there is nothing normative here and no moral connotations, purely objective. 

Fact, truth, correctness and the like ("and the like" makes the statement nebulous) are objective statements about reality. That doesn’t preclude opinion. Even opinions can be fact, truth, correct etc. as long as they aren’t lies untrue. If I really prefer chocolate then it’s a fact I prefer chocolate and true that I prefer chocolate.  This last sentence has a time component that you have not discussed; I may prefer chocolate today and not tomorrow - thus, it is not universally a true or factual statement. If I prefer chocolate then it's true that I prefer chocolate and if I tell you that I'm not lying. Tomorrow has nothing to do with anything, that is changing the subject. If it's true that today it's a full moon, it doesn't become false because tomorrow it won't be a full moon.

11. given the above definitions: if a DECISION is "in a way of doing or being not in conformity with the property of being in accord with fact or reality" ...... it is objectively incorrect/wrong I think your statement mixes truth and moral relativity, thus is not universally true without an external reference point, i.e. source of truth. I appreciate that you think that, but I haven't mentioned morality at all. You are inferring something I haven't said or inferred with my statement. Please confine it to what I said. This isn't a premise, it's a definition.

13. There is no such thing as un-owned property. Something isn't property unless it is owned.  By humans, animals, God, goldfish, an amoeba, alien beings?
  Are you using the term "property" in the physical sense or in the "attribute" sense or both?  For the physical sense definition, are you limiting your definition to earth, or do you include our solar system, galaxy, universe?  For the attribute sense, are you limiting attributes to humans? Physical. Is it not obvious that I'm not talking about owned and un-owned characteristics? What would that even mean? How could my sentences make any sense if i was talking about characteristics?

14. Ownership of property is a term used to describe the state whereby some person (see above for other entities that may or may not have ownership claims) Is a goldfish a person?  I said person. We've said over and over and over and over that we're talking about humans. We've said that from the very start, why is it now a revelation?(let's leave out animals for the moment please) has first claim on the use of or possesion of something.* That is, if there are multiple individuals trying to use or posses the same thing at the same time, if one has a higher claim than the all others we describe that state as ownership.  What does "higher claim" specifically mean and who or what determines the definition of higher claim? You know what the word "claim" means and you know what the word "higher" implies. Do we really need to blow this up into more than what it is? This is the reason things take so long. I think there is some deliberate missunderstandings here and it's exhausting that seemingly nothing can be understood without exacting dissection. You'll have to wait for how it's determined.

* - I realize some of you might not believe this exists in reality. I'm putting forward initially that the idea or concept is described as ownership. We'll work on the rest.

[Kshartle]

The problem with those concepts (especially that of God), is that words just tend to have very different meanings... and while doodle is saying something so odd and ambiguous such as "what if we don't exist," it is Mountaineer believing in a more fundamental, unprovable truth, that makes all these premises have definition issues, and since God & our souls is the only true basis to reality (everything else is just physical bs around us), then it's going to be very, very difficult to have a grounded discussion of WHAT IS TRUE about existence, individuality, control, ownership, etc.

Essentially, God is the premise that just can't be shut off, and it wiggles its way into almost every premise you pose... in their eyes.

If in the end the logic is rock solid and the only objections are based on superstitions, I will not be dissapointed in the least.

[Mountaineer]

For instance, if Mountaineer were to say, at the end of all this, "K, you haven't proven that we exist," then you could say, "well sure, I haven't, but you at the very least have to accept that if we DO exist, my argument is correct.  And if you are taking an action, one way or the other, you must exist, and therefore, to behave morally, must use my model."

moda and Kshartle,

Overall, great post moda.  But my wierd mind does think of lots of possibiities that my wife thinks are strange.  For example, I do believe I exist, as a combination of body and soul.  For all practical purposes, when I die, my body 1 second after death will be substantially the same as one second before I die.  Yet I'm dead.  Why?  The only (unprovable ?) notion I have to explain that, is something happended to something in me during that 1 second that is as yet unrecognizable ... for me that is my soul.  So, when I see Kshartle post something like "we exist", without definition and his cocksure assurance everyone believes that, it raises all sorts of interesting questions to me that I don't think Kshartle recognizes.  That is, other people think differently than Kshartle.  Thus, I believe whatever proof he comes up with has to account for all sorts of ideas that may differ or his proof will "not hold water" to use some colloquial terms that I shamed Kshartle for using.    That is why I'm trying to be such a stickler for using dictionary definitions and extremely precise language ... it really is not to be a PITA.

Secondly, my training indicates that when one undertakes a task, the following framework is very useful to lay out ahead of time and get agreement from those involved in the task that all the elements are correct and appropriate.  I have not seen all the elements of that framework displayed in this thread.  That has likely led to some of my confusion.

What is the task at hand?  Consider these elements:
Purpose: Why are we undertaking the task?  Who will benefit if the task is completed successfully, or not completed successfully?
Desired outcomes:  What exactly is it that will be the result of accomplishing the task?
Processes:  What are the processes that will be used to accomplish each of those desired outcomes?
Inputs:  What resources are necessary to engage in the processes, complete the outcomes and achieve the purpose?
Groundrules:  What specific behaviors are necessary for the person or group to work on this task both efficiently and effectively?

That is a brief description of the framework; I'm sure further fleshing out would be beneficial, at least to me. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

The problem with those concepts (especially that of God), is that words just tend to have very different meanings... and while doodle is saying something so odd and ambiguous such as "what if we don't exist," it is Mountaineer believing in a more fundamental, unprovable truth, that makes all these premises have definition issues, and since God & our souls is the only true basis to reality (everything else is just physical bs around us), then it's going to be very, very difficult to have a grounded discussion of WHAT IS TRUE about existence, individuality, control, ownership, etc.

Essentially, God is the premise that just can't be shut off, and it wiggles its way into almost every premise you pose... in their eyes.

If in the end the logic is rock solid and the only objections are based on superstitions, I will not be dissapointed in the least.

Your game, your rules, your outcome.  Enjoy!

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

The problem with those concepts (especially that of God), is that words just tend to have very different meanings... and while doodle is saying something so odd and ambiguous such as "what if we don't exist," it is Mountaineer believing in a more fundamental, unprovable truth, that makes all these premises have definition issues, and since God & our souls is the only true basis to reality (everything else is just physical bs around us), then it's going to be very, very difficult to have a grounded discussion of WHAT IS TRUE about existence, individuality, control, ownership, etc.

Essentially, God is the premise that just can't be shut off, and it wiggles its way into almost every premise you pose... in their eyes.

If in the end the logic is rock solid and the only objections are based on superstitions, I will not be dissapointed in the least.

Nor will I.  In fact, I hope to have my mind opened, even if it means being proven wrong.

Let us hit that end by the rapture, though, shall we?

[Mountaineer]

Let us hit that end by the rapture, though, shall we?

Rapture!  Was that an appeal to the Evangelical Christians?  I hope you know that we confessional Lutherans do not subscribe to that interpretation.  Perhaps, for us confessional Lutherans you could say, by the Last Day. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

There are at least 15 of us that have been a little bit or more active in this thread.
TennPaGa
l82start
Kshartle
moda
Pointedstick
Mountaineer
rickb
clacy
doodle
Desert
Xan
MachineGhost
MediumTex
Stewardship
ns3

So, based on this thread: 
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... pped/ 
which one of us is it?    At the risk of asking a question I can't stand the answer to, any nominations?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

15. A statement that is self contradicting must be false. (I don’t know how to use the English language).

16. The negation of a false statement is true.

17. The non-inclusion of some decisions into the realm of moral or immoral does not dissprove the existance of morality.


Any dissagreement on these?

If the answer is yes, would you be so kind as to explain why you think they are incorrect? Evidence or logic proving they are wrong is welcome.

[Xan]

You're just stating the axioms of logic now, more or less.  To the extent that logic rules the universe, they're true.  For purposes of your proof here, let's assume they're true.  Why don't you just post your proof?

[moda0306]

K,

I think I'm cool with those.

Just for kicks, how many premises do you have total?  Sorry if you've already told us.



Also, I think we might get to a point where we disagree with what a "self-contradicting statement" consists of, but, if you prefer, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Thanks for moving the train forward. That is, if you even exist (which is an unproven premise and why your argument fails).

Jk.

[Kshartle]

"We shouldn't do what is wrong"

This is a statement that virtually everyone would look at and consider an opinion. I believe people regard such a statement as opinion, because people have such different beliefs about what is wrong. To religious people it's violating laws handed down from God through ancient scrolls or humans that God or some diety speak through. To others what is wrong is what's against the law. To others it's whatever makes them unhappy. To others there is no such thing as wrong.

Since there are so many opinions about what it means for some action/decision to be wrong that any statement containing that idea is regarded as a statement of opinion. It is however, a clear statement of fact. When stating "We shoudln't do what is wrong", a personal is litterally saying, "It's true and correct that we should not choose to act in a manner that is wrong". This is a statement about reality, even if the idea of wrong is not agreed upon. The person who makes the statement has an idea of what that means for them, and by extension for others, when they make the statement.

You can't escape the factual nature of the statement by saying "It's my opinion that we shoudln't do what is wrong". That's like saying "It's my opinion that the Earth is flat". If the latter is spoken, then it's my opinion you're trying to weasel out of the belief you have about the Earth, so that can't be proven wrong (Hey man....it's just my opinion).

Statments about facts can be proven correct or incorrect as we've discussed over and over. So let's start by looking at the negation of the statement.

"We should do what is wrong" = It is correct and true that we should do what is incorrect and false (not in accordance with reality blah blah)

Nevermind figuring out what's in accordance with reality, we'll get to that shortly (hopefully). Just stick with what we have above for now.

"It is correct and true that we should do what is incorrect and false" - This is clearly a self-contradicting statement and therefore flase. An imperative to do what is incorrect cannot exist because that imperative would be correct, therefore we shoudln't follow it. If the statement was true it would have to simultaneously be false because if it's true we should do the opposite. The self-contradiction is inescapeable. The circle cannot be squared. I'll not go further on this unless there is some confusion.

Suffice it to say "We should do what is wrong" is a false statement. Therefore the negation of it "We should not do what is wrong" is a true statement. It's obvious that the second one is not self-contradicting. It is logically consistent.

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. 

[moda0306]

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 .

[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

[Xan]

Also, "we shouldn't do what is wrong" is a tautology.  It's useless.  It's identical to "we shouldn't do what we should not do".  True, but not helpful.