Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Let's call a truce here. Ought is a suggested action. Not necessarily moral yet.

With any ought, you have to have an end desire for any suggested action guiding the logic of the suggestion. "Moral behavior" might be one of those.  We still have to prove the concept of morality.

So in philosophy, when we are talking about "oughts," morality as the ultimate goal is implied.  Perhaps this should have been more clearly stated. We're arguing past each other as I see it.

So far, anyway.

I'm laying down my sword on this one.  I'm eyeballing it though for the next set of premises.

Ought is not just suggested. One of your earliest comments was that objectively correct behavior means something we "ought" to do.

If you're starving you "ought" to eat (again provided you prefer to live). This is not a just a suggestion and this is not a small point.

If it's not a suggestion, what is it?  A preferred behavior?  A duty?  A behavior that will best realize your goal?

Define ought...

And if you "ought to eat" if you are hungry, what does that say about taking an apple from a vendor?

I might revisit this with a clearer head in the AM....but "ought" would be behavior or choices that are in accordance with reality. One of the earlier premises was about the definition of correct behavior and that we "ought" to engage in correct behavior. 

I think it's time for a recap of everything thus far.

Ohhhh don't you worry about stealing apples off of carts....we'll get to that.   That is an easy one......

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: So, to add to my previous post that discusses faith, even Kshartle's first premise requires faith.  For me, the question reduces to the simplest version:  Who is going to be God?  God or something else?

It seems the first premise requires faith in man's logic or himself in order to accept some "fact"; i.e. man is going to be God.  God being defined as that which we place our trust in or derive comfort from.  Thus, even though we are now up to a dozen premises or so, it is a faulty assumption from the get-go to make man god.  If ones faith derives from man, to me it is very suspect and subject to error.

To me, an unbeliever, the phrases, "Who is going to be God?", "i.e. man is going to be God." and "God being defined as that which we place our trust in or derive comfort from." are collections of words that have no comprehensible meaning. I think I understand what you're saying, but it shows such a difference in thinking that I wonder if it will be possible to bridge the communication gulf. How can I be making man into God if I do not believe in God? Can I make X into Y, where Y is acknowledged to be unprovable and I do not believe in the existence of Y? It just kind of makes my head spin.

Can we work with these definitions?

PS,

The Christian God, with a capital G:  the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.  [PS, I think this is the one you do not believe in.]

god with a small g:  an adored, admired, or influential person or thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to God.  [PS, this could be money, family, home, your trade, or you yourself - and many similar type things or people]

K,

Faith: confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view.  [as an example, for me a Christain, this would be faith in the promises of Jesus vs. faith in my own ability to know and prove why evil exists]

Reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.  [my personal view is that reason and cognative are similar ways of gaining understanding and different from gaining knowledge by experience or revelation]

... Mountaineer

I can work with those.

I'll think about them and not rush to respond but I will respond.

Ok well good thing Xan was a stickler.

I think we really need to hash out "ought." 

To say that a behavior is in accordance with reality doesn't really say much. If it is physically possible, then that is obviously not the same as a duty, or a necessity to achieve a certain outcome.

We gotta figure this one out....

So if (hypothetically) I believe that reason is the best way to gain knowledge, have I made it my god? Have I made money my god by deciding to save 60% of my income? To me "making something a god" seems very derogatory and is something that I have only ever heard believers say in the context of other people caring too much about something the believer believes they should not care as much about. It seems like a rather inappropriate addition to a conversation whose very premise is the attempt to prove morality using logic. I'm as skeptical as I think you are, but we have to go along with the premises presented to give it a fair shake.

OK, I'll stop hijacking the thread.

moda0306 wrote: Ok well good thing Xan was a stickler.

I think we really need to hash out "ought." 

To say that a behavior is in accordance with reality doesn't really say much. If it is physically possible, then that is obviously not the same as a duty, or a necessity to achieve a certain outcome.

We gotta figure this one out....

That's what we're trying to do man. We have a ways to go. You are trying to jump to the conclusion before you're ready.

I understand the eagerness. We are trying to prove (or disprove) that there is behavior that we "ought" to do.

I completely agree with your underlined statement.

I just googled the definition of ought and this is the first thing that popped up: used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

ok who cares about criticizing.....we "ought" to do what is correct. The word "ought" is not the challenge. The word "correct" is the challenge.

Does that make sense? We are making a mountain out of a molehill I think.

We "ought" not do that if we're going to get anywhere.

Simonjester wrote: but you can choose how you feel and those choices can lead to actions that are immoral and they can have results (even if they are only internal) is feeling envy correct or incorrect? if being envious is making you unhappy (which it likely will) i would say it is incorrect. they can certainly be considered immoral when viewed from the religious perspective which is probably irrelevant to the thread, but from a secular view if they lead to action and the action they lead to is immoral, then they may or may not be immoral by themselves but they are in that case an instigator of immoral action...

Pointedstick wrote: we have to go along with the premises presented to give it a fair shake.

Or challenge any you think are incorrect please.

On second thought Moda lemme think of something more regarding this concept of "ought".

Kshartle wrote: On second thought Moda lemme think of something more regarding this concept of "ought".

Great.  It's got a fishy smell to it that seems to deserve some attention even if we haven't got to "morality" yet.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: On second thought Moda lemme think of something more regarding this concept of "ought".

Great.  It's got a fishy smell to it that seems to deserve some attention even if we haven't got to "morality" yet.

I'm turning in since I have an early airport drop off tomorrow. Before I do though:

"We ought to do what's incorrect"

Think about that statement. I think we are reading into a simple word. Goodnight.

Simonjester wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: So, to add to my previous post that discusses faith, even Kshartle's first premise requires faith.  For me, the question reduces to the simplest version:  Who is going to be God?  God or something else?

It seems the first premise requires faith in man's logic or himself in order to accept some "fact"; i.e. man is going to be God.  God being defined as that which we place our trust in or derive comfort from.  Thus, even though we are now up to a dozen premises or so, it is a faulty assumption from the get-go to make man god.  If ones faith derives from man, to me it is very suspect and subject to error.

To me, an unbeliever, the phrases, "Who is going to be God?", "i.e. man is going to be God." and "God being defined as that which we place our trust in or derive comfort from." are collections of words that have no comprehensible meaning. I think I understand what you're saying, but it shows such a difference in thinking that I wonder if it will be possible to bridge the communication gulf. How can I be making man into God if I do not believe in God? Can I make X into Y, where Y is acknowledged to be unprovable and I do not believe in the existence of Y? It just kind of makes my head spin.

"Who is going to be God?", is already making the assumption somebody or something has to, you have included your preexisting conclusion in the question you are asking..  man placing trust in his ability to correctly perceive reality, and to reason logically about the nature of the reality he perceives does not need a god to take place (unless you make that assumption part of the question IE somebody has to be/play god)

I am obviously not communicating clearly.  When I pose the question, "Who is going to be God - or god(s) if you prefer?  I do not think one has to believe in God in order to have a god.  I am trying to get us to think about who or what is it that we put our ultimate trust in to never, ever let us down, who or what is our ultimate source of truth, who or what is it we hold up to the ultimate high standard.  Perhaps the word "idol" would be appropriate for non-believers but that seems to have a lot of baggage associated with it?  Perhaps, since we all understand the concept of God, the unbelievers could just say what is it they worship instead of God?  I'm not sure.  Maybe this will help explain what I'm driving at - I have heard it said that if you want to know who a culture thinks God/god is, look at the biggest buildings.  For example, in the middle ages it was the cathedral.  Currently it seems to be be banks and hospitals and many government buildings.  Thus, in the middle ages one could say God was supreme, today it would be money, health and government.  Another example: based on his actions, I might say that Obama perceives himself to be god due to his apparent overstepping his bounds re. what Congress has legislated in the ACA and other apparently narcissistic behaviors. 

I also do not think it is necessary for us to share via a post who God/god is for us, if you do, great, it will probably help all of us better understand how we see Kshartle's premises.  But I do think it is important for each of us to examine ourselves and realize we all have a God/god(s) whether we are believers or unbelievers and then to identify what that God/god(s) is in the situation we are dealing with.  If Kshartle were not driving toward the title of this thread "Proving Morality" I would not be making such a big deal of this.  However, for the subject at hand, I think it is very important to identify what is fundamentally driving our worldview.

I don't know if this helps to clarify or confuse, we will see.  Anyway, I'm really not trying to be obstructionist - I just want us to realize that each of us has something or someone we hold up as our source of ultimate truth and identify what it is (in the context of this discussion - i.e. Kshartle's premises and their conclusion). 

Not to put words in anyones mouth, but it seems, based on the conversation so far, that for Pointedstick, god could be knowledge or ultimate trust in his own intelligence.  For moda and Kshartle, it could be logic and reason.  But, I'm just guessing.  Thanks for bearing with me.

... Mountaineer

Simonjester wrote: i think using the word "god" is confusing the question and warping the meaning of the word god, maybe what you are asking is what is the "source".. and for the purpose of proving the morality of NAP logically, the rules of logic are the source and the measure of whether or not kshartle is successful.
Unless you are somehow trying to say that logic is wrong and a "false god or idol" and that some "real" god based on "faith" is required to understand morality, in which case we will see... but we need to let the attempt be made to let logic prove what it can before we jump into arguments about where morality comes from if it cant be proven with logic..

Pointedstick wrote: So if (hypothetically) I believe that reason is the best way to gain knowledge, have I made it my god? Have I made money my god by deciding to save 60% of my income? To me "making something a god" seems very derogatory and is something that I have only ever heard believers say in the context of other people caring too much about something the believer believes they should not care as much about. It seems like a rather inappropriate addition to a conversation whose very premise is the attempt to prove morality using logic. I'm as skeptical as I think you are, but we have to go along with the premises presented to give it a fair shake.

OK, I'll stop hijacking the thread.

PS,

I do not have enough information to answer your questions.  In my opinion, reason, logic and money are not of themselves a problem, they are just tools to help us achieve our goals.  Considering God or god(s), it is more an issue of what the goals are than what the tools are.  For example, do I hoard money and/or use it only for self-gratification, or do I use some of it to help others who are more in need than I am?  Or for logic, do I use it as a tool to aid in coming to "logical" conclusions and plan a course of action, or do I attempt to use it to learn things that are unprovable and/or unknowable by reason?  For example, can a child use logic to learn how to walk?  I suspect that particular knowledge of how to walk comes via experience (trial and error?).  For more on the subject of God/god see my previous post.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: I am obviously not communicating clearly.  When I pose the question, "Who is going to be God - or god(s) if you prefer?  I do not think one has to believe in God in order to have a god.  I am trying to get us to think about who or what is it that we put our ultimate trust in to never, ever let us down, who or what is our ultimate source of truth, who or what is it we hold up to the ultimate high standard.

Personally, I don't have anything that I put my ultimate trust in to never let me down; I believe there is no ultimate source of truth; and I hold nobody and nothing up to the ultimate high standard. Such things are only possible in the context of an infallible supreme being, in my estimation; without one, they make no sense. As such, I believe that these types of perfection are impossible to achieve here on the mortal world. So it does not make sense to me to try to pinpoint what I or others ascribe these godlike qualities to since they are, by their very nature, qualities of gods, not mortal men, physical objects, or ideas in our heads.

Does that make sense?

Mountaineer wrote: I also do not think it is necessary for us to share via a post who God/god is for us, if you do, great, it will probably help all of us better understand how we see Kshartle's premises.  But I do think it is important for each of us to examine ourselves and realize we all have a God/god(s) whether we are believers or unbelievers and then to identify what that God/god(s) is in the situation we are dealing with.

For the aforementioned reason, this sentence does not make sense to me. If a "non-God god" is something I put ultimate faith in to never let me down, and I do not put such ultimate faith in anything, I have no "non-God god."

Mountaineer wrote: Not to put words in anyones mouth, but it seems, based on the conversation so far, that for Pointedstick, god could be knowledge or ultimate trust in his own intelligence.

My knowledge and intelligence are highly fallible, and have failed me on innumerable occasions. My attempts to sharpen and improve them should not in any way be taken as evidence of belief in their infallibility or being my ultimate source of truth.

Kshartle wrote:I'm turning in since I have an early airport drop off tomorrow. Before I do though:

"We ought to do what's incorrect"

Think about that statement. I think we are reading into a simple word. Goodnight.

It seems that your definition of "ought" is entirely meaningless.  You're saying that a person "ought" to do anything that leads to the achievement of his goals.  Okay...  That's more or less a tautology.  The real question is what ought his goals to be?

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:I'm turning in since I have an early airport drop off tomorrow. Before I do though:

"We ought to do what's incorrect"

Think about that statement. I think we are reading into a simple word. Goodnight.

It seems that your definition of "ought" is entirely meaningless.  You're saying that a person "ought" to do anything that leads to the achievement of his goals.  Okay...  That's more or less a tautology.  The real question is what ought his goals to be?

Xan that's exactly what I'm saying. "ought" is not the important word. We "ought" to do what is "correct". "Correct" is the important word. That's exactly what I wrote earlier.

So look at these three sentences please:

We ought to do the right thing.
We ought to do the wrong thing.
We ought to do whatever.

To me one of these sentences works and the other two self-detonate. The difference is obvious....it's the action we ought to take and it's "correctness".

Words aren't magical. They just represent ideas. The word "ought" in inextribicly linked to correctness or the the right thing. We can call it a duty or an imperative if you like, I think that's ok. It's just the way we verbally express the concept of the imperative to do what is right/correct.

It's like we both said....then important thing is nailing down what is right and correct. If something is right and correct that by definition that's what we "ought" to do.

My first instinct was that we were making too much out of it. I should trust my instinct more.

Does that all make sense? I think we agree here which means we are probably correct and "ought" to feel confident about the conclusion.

Okay, I may be able to get on board with that at this point in the conversation.

But I'm not sure that "ought" always boils down to "correct" or "incorrect".  Does "ought" extend to feelings, or just actions?  Ought I to feed bad if a close family member is diagnosed with some horrible disease?  What about if it's my worst enemy?  Maybe for purposes of this "prove it" conversation, we do only care about actions.

Xan wrote: Okay, I may be able to get on board with that at this point in the conversation.

But I'm not sure that "ought" always boils down to "correct" or "incorrect".  Does "ought" extend to feelings, or just actions?  Ought I to feed bad if a close family member is diagnosed with some horrible disease?  What about if it's my worst enemy?  Maybe for purposes of this "prove it" conversation, we do only care about actions.

I don't think feelings can possibly be correct or incorrect. They certainly can't be moral or immoral because they aren't decisions or choices. We don't choose how we feel and for that matter we cannot judge feelings. Can you judge a bee for stinging you? It doesn't have the ability to choose.

This is jumping ahead though.

Does that make sense?

I don't think it's necessarily relevant to this conversation, but yes, feelings can absolutely be moral or immoral.  I'll quote my friend Kshartle: What is your basis for your belief that they aren't?

Matthew 5:21-22 wrote: Ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not kill, and whoever may kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment

Matthew 5:27-28 wrote: Ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

Those are piercing, damning statements that puncture our illusion of righteousness right to the core.

Xan wrote: I don't think it's necessarily relevant to this conversation, but yes, feelings can absolutely be moral or immoral.  I'll quote my friend Kshartle: What is your basis for your belief that they aren't?

Matthew 5:21-22 wrote: Ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not kill, and whoever may kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment

Matthew 5:27-28 wrote: Ye heard that it was said to the ancients: Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

Those are piercing, damning statements that puncture our illusion of righteousness right to the core.

Come on. This is not evidence of anything other than what someone wrote. There is no rationale for it. I provided a rationale for why feelings cannot be judged as right or wrong.

Maybe Moda, PS, Tech or l2 can cut through this. Help me out guys.

I've been thinking about the word "ought," as well as "correct," and I think we're conflating definitions again.

If something is correct, that could mean that it is simply a fact.  The sky is blue.  I control my body.

A rock falling to the ground might also be a "correct" affect to the rock in nature.

A course of action can only be "correct" in a non-moral sense if there is a desired "cause/effect."  I don't see "eating" or "breathing" as being "correct" in any form in-and-of-themselves, unless by "correct" we mean "breathing does/did occur in nature."

Before, you claimed the following:

Humans can't breathe underwater without assitance from an object or another person - reality

A human who wants to live who chooses to breathe underwater without assistance because they think they can is incorrectly assesing objective reality.

Ergo, they "ought not" do that (open their mouth and try to breathe underwater). It is objectively wrong behavior/choice/decision.

I don't see how this follows, logically.

It is an "incorrect" interpretation of reality to assume you can breathe underwater, but that doesn't logically flow that it is "incorrect" to do so.  Or at least I'm having trouble following the logic.

If an action is POSSIBLE, the action corresponds with reality... it's our INTERPRETATION of reality that is "incorrect."  Does it follow that an action can be "incorrect" if it corresponds with an incorrect interpretation of reality?  We tend to talk about things like that, but it it NECESSARILY logically true?  Can an ACTION be incorrect (assuming not having gotten to "morality" yet)?

Also, not to dip into one of the gray areas, but just for clarification, is it "incorrect" for a deer who doesn't understand thin ice to walk out onto thin ice?  I guess what I'm asking is, is it our conscious thought that potentially makes an action "correct" or "incorrect?"  Not trying to argue about gray areas, but moreso establish what could make a behavior "incorrect."

To me, a behavior is what it is.  Our interpretation of reality could be "incorrect," but an action either is or isn't... unless we insert some sort of value statement connecting actions to "incorrect" or "correct" interpretations of reality.

moda0306 wrote: If an action is POSSIBLE, the action corresponds with reality... it's our INTERPRETATION of reality that is "incorrect."  Does it follow that an action can be "incorrect" if it corresponds with an incorrect interpretation of reality?  We tend to talk about things like that, but it it NECESSARILY logically true?  Can an ACTION be incorrect (assuming not having gotten to "morality" yet)?

Also, not to dip into one of the gray areas, but just for clarification, is it "incorrect" for a deer who doesn't understand thin ice to walk out onto thin ice?  I guess what I'm asking is, is it our conscious thought that potentially makes an action "correct" or "incorrect?"  Not trying to argue about gray areas, but moreso establish what could make a behavior "incorrect."

To me, a behavior is what it is.  Our interpretation of reality could be "incorrect," but an action either is or isn't... unless we insert some sort of value statement connecting actions to "incorrect" or "correct" interpretations of reality.

The interpretation is incorrect, therefore the decision is incorrect. If you want to say the action cannot be incorrect that's fine, I don't think there's any conflict there. It's the decision that's wrong. If you want to say it's not possible to make a wrong decision because it's possible to make a decision.....we will be drowing in self-inflicted nonsense.

It's possible to pick up a pawn and move it backwards in chess. If you want to say that because someone can physically do it it's not wrong ok for now (without delving further I think this is a moot point). Clearly the decision is wrong in the context of the game. If you think the decision cannot be wrong because it's possible to make a decision, I have to ask what you think the words "right & wrong" actually mean.

I thought I laid out an agreed upon definition earlier.

moda0306 wrote: Also, not to dip into one of the gray areas, but just for clarification, is it "incorrect" for a deer who doesn't understand thin ice to walk out onto thin ice?  I guess what I'm asking is, is it our conscious thought that potentially makes an action "correct" or "incorrect?"  Not trying to argue about gray areas, but moreso establish what could make a behavior "incorrect."

Please lets stick with humans and move onto animals later. let's prove 2+2=4 before moving onto x=-7 therefore 3x + 25 - 4n = 12    means that n=-2

Kshartle wrote:Come on. This is not evidence of anything other than what someone wrote. There is no rationale for it. I provided a rationale for why feelings cannot be judged as right or wrong.

Maybe Moda, PS, Tech or l2 can cut through this. Help me out guys.

Okay, here's a rationale: it's your feelings that truly reveal who you are.  If not to God, then to yourself.  You can put on any mask that you like, but you can still be a bad person on the inside regardless of what you actually do.

Now, I wouldn't say that's for man to judge, and certainly feelings shouldn't be illegal, but I vehemently disagree with the idea that feelings can't be immoral, because they absolutely can.

Simonjester wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Xan wrote: Okay, I may be able to get on board with that at this point in the conversation.

But I'm not sure that "ought" always boils down to "correct" or "incorrect".  Does "ought" extend to feelings, or just actions?  Ought I to feed bad if a close family member is diagnosed with some horrible disease?  What about if it's my worst enemy?  Maybe for purposes of this "prove it" conversation, we do only care about actions.

I don't think feelings can possibly be correct or incorrect. They certainly can't be moral or immoral because they aren't decisions or choices. We don't choose how we feel and for that matter we cannot judge feelings. Can you judge a bee for stinging you? It doesn't have the ability to choose.

This is jumping ahead though.

Does that make sense?

but you can choose how you feel and those choices can lead to actions that are immoral and they can have results (even if they are only internal) is feeling envy correct or incorrect?  if being envious is making you unhappy (which it likely will) i would say it is incorrect.  they can certainly be considered immoral when viewed from the religious perspective which is probably irrelevant to the thread, but from a secular view if they lead to action and the action they lead to is immoral, then they may or may not be immoral by themselves but they are in that case an instigator of immoral action...

We are not in agreement about the definition of feelings then. I am assuming this is something you don't control. You are assuming control or choice right?

I would call that a thought at least and distinguish it from a feeling. We can choose what we think about.

This is completely irrelavent either way. I must say I appreciate the irony of people saying that morality can't be objectively provable arguing that feelings can be morally right or wrong. I'll agree even for the sake of moving on because I don't think it matters one drop. If you want to argue that a feeling can be morally right or wrong then I'm all ears. Saying it's wrong because it "might" lead to something is silly though......since it "might" not. If the rightness or wrongness of a feeling is based on what it might lead to......what feeling isn't wrong since they can lead to just about any decision or non-decision. Right?

Simonjester wrote: yes i assume control or the often un-exercised option of control. Feelings and thoughts are interrelated and influence each other in a chicken/egg egg/chicken way. i am not arguing that they are or aren't morally wrong, only trying to point out the religious perspective says they are, and that the non religious view is undecided or will vary from person to person, or be dependent on (not immoral unless) it having resulted in immoral action..

i don't think it is relevant to the nap/logic argument just a interesting aside at best...

Xan wrote: I vehemently disagree with the idea that feelings can't be immoral, because they absolutely can.

And then so can actions right?