Proving Morality

[Kshartle]

Ok, so this is the definition of decision:

a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration.


So a decision appears to be a "conclusion," or more-so a step in the process of "interpretation."

Can we agree on that?

So my "decision" (conclusion) to breath underwater is incorrect, because I'm concluding, explicitly or implicitly, that I can breath underwater.

But the actual ACTION of attempting to breathe underwater, I don't think, can be correct or incorrect.  Sorry to keep moving around on you. I'm discovering my "interpretations" and "decisions" on this stuff as I take the "action" of typing.

Yes.

My instinct has always been that the decision was the "action" that was right or wrong and that it was inextricibly linked to the interpretation of reality. This conforms completely with the premise I laid out I think, just not to this minutia of detail.

I think it's good to break this stuff up as much as possible. My instinct was that this was all correct...and deliniating between the interpretation and the decision didn't matter and the idea of the action being labeled as wrong was inconsequential. Essentially a "correct" decision doesn't lead to a "incorrect" action regardless of the outcome.

This is productive thinking and learning. It's learning in a manner that is useful and explainable.

Thanks for participating in it.

[moda0306]

So if decision is more part of "interpretation" than "action," my next question is, is the "decision" (conclusion) about how reality should be interpreted the same as the "decision" (conclusion) as the action to take.

For instance, it might be my decision that breathing in water is not in fact harmful.

This is an incorrect decision.


If I then make the "decision" that based on the aforementioned conclusion that I AM going to go and inhale underwater.

That decision is DIFFERENT than the conclusion about breathing in water.  It's a conclusion regarding action.  An action I take.  There's two ways we can look at this:

I have reached the conclusion that I OUGHT to try to breathe under-water.

or

I have reached the conclusion that I am going to try to breathe under-water.

I don't think that 2nd "decision" can be correct or "incorrect."  But I can't tell for sure, or even if that's what we're dealing with.  The "ought" in #1 seems premature. 

Can we get a damn philosophy major on this board.  This is starting to make my head explode.



Maybe we can assume that (barring some gray area human-nature/addiction type stuff) that all action-decisions are a conclusion of some sort as to what will benefit me the most.  Assuming this premise (people always do what they believe to be in their best interests) I think I could maybe assume an action-decision to be incorrect.  Because the action-decision carries in it a couple premises, one of which is to maximize our personal outcome, the 2nd of which is that I can breathe underwater, the 3rd of which is that I desire to go deep-water swimming with fish:

Therefore: I should inhale under-water.  (This is your "incorrect decision"... a conclusion resulting in action)

But now we're back to "oughts" again.

If "decisions" are just conclusions, then we either have a "conclusion" about our interpretation of our world, which can be "correct" or "incorrect." (This I think we agree on), but "conclusion" about a behavior that we are going to perform usually are built by an "ought" with us in our heads.  There has to be SOME subjective thing in there.  Cuz now we're back to square 1... "conclusions" about actions have to be built with the subjective preference of "I should maximize my happiness," or whatever.

So I think, Kshartle, that to the degree that a "decision" is simply a conclusion, like any other logical conclusion, then it can be "correct" or "incorrect."  But when action takes place, there simply HAS to be some subjective piece there.  I might conclude that I can breathe underwater, (which is incorrect), but the "conclusion" about a course of action combines (potentially false) conclusions about the state of nature combined with SOME kind of subjective "ought" premise.  (maybe maximizing happiness for myself)

I'm lost in my own head.  Can we debate Monetary Realism again?

[moda0306]

Ok... let's back up a bit...

A statement about reality can be correct or incorrect based on truth, observation, logical deductivity, etc.

A decision is just a conclusion (can be correct/incorrect)

An action is just a physical occurrence (can't be correct/incorrect (yet... until we prove morality or something else))

We agree on these right?


More complex:

What the hell does "ought" even mean?  Do we even need that word?  Here's the definition:


used to indicate duty or correctness.

or

used to indicate a desirable or expected state.


If you look up the word duty, it wreaks of legal/moral responsibility... not what we want yet.  So all we're left with is "correctness" or a "preferred state."  The phrase "preferred state" involves a (subjective) value-judgement in-and-of-itself.

Which brings us right back to what can/can't be correct, which is Interpretations, conclusions based on those interpretations, but NOT necessarily actions.

My dilemma is, if "correctness" doesn't apply to an actual action, but just conclusions/decisions, then "OUGHT" does not apply to actions either, which doesn't seem right... until we realize what builds most of the "oughts" for most people.

"Oughts" combine conclusions about reality with certain value-objectives to apply them against. 

This is what we were discussing earlier.  I was trying to explain that these things aren't self-evident.  They need to be explained, and they're often subjective.  I can explain reality, but unless I can apply some "preferred state" to it, I can't come to a conclusion about a "preferred" action.  If I WANT to breathe under water for some reason, and I determine that WANTS should drive my decisions, and I actually interpret reality correctly that I CAN'T breathe underwater, my conclusion about behavior is to get scuba equipment and use it.  I "ought" to do that.

But one of my premises sure was a goofy one, that included a very subjective, non-self-evident claim...

...that my WANTS should (ought to) drive my decisions.

Think of all the ugly places that could go, if we are eventually to prove that morality is a provable fact.

It's seems to me inescapable that we're dealing, at some level, with every decision and measuring whether we "ought" to do it, with some unprovable "ought."  This ought being an unprovable "preferred state" that, while not necessarily "incorrect," is extremely subjective and by no means proven, and therefore can't be used to prove that a decision can be correct (insofar that it is just a conclusion about reality), but a decision about action cannot be proven "correct," because they all have a built-in subjective preference.

[Mountaineer]

I may be dumber than a fence post on this topic, but it seems after reading moda's last post we are very close to what I posted on March 25:

"For what it is worth, and in this thread probably not much since we are for a while eliminating God from the equation, I had a discussion with three very learned Pastors (STMs and PhD) about this subject (yes, I realize they have their biases just like the rest of us).  I asked them if they thought it was possible to prove such things as NAP, self-ownership, or a universally held moral system without an external source such as God.  The all said no.  They said that when one eliminates God from the equation (external source of righteousness), it is almost a natural that one then tries to develop some type of a moral system to replace God (kind of like K is trying to do).  They all said to the best of their knowledge, all the previous efforts to do that had failed.  So, if they are correct, Kshartle has a monumental task in front of him."

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

You certainly aren't dumb, but I'll give you two reasons why your post is not really relevant, yet.

1) We haven't given Kshartle a chance to logically prove self-ownership.  The whole reason for this thread was to give him a chance to do so.  I agree that I think anarcho-capitalism "invents" morality as a provable concept.

2) You and your friends can't prove God exists, either, nor (especially) what he wants.  So we're all on the same footing of basically trying to make an "educated guess" at morality.


He does have a monumental task ahead of him... and we haven't even gotten to all those gritty gray areas yet (I don't think we'll need to).

But so do you!  You want us all to believe in something pretty close to your One Moral Truth, that you express in other threads, yet you can't prove it is the One Moral Truth.

I just want us to find out when we have conclusions (that end up being premises in various other arguments) that aren't provable, and to have us all admit the shakiness of those premises.

So Mountaineer, if you don't think morality can be proven logically, it 1) doesn't mean it doesn't exist without God, 2) Doesn't mean God does exist, 3) doesn't mean you understand the will of God, if he does exist, and 4) doesn't mean we can't debunk Kshartle's proof without trying to throw out God-based premises that can't be proven, or meta-physical stuff.

So it's not that you and your friend/Pastors aren't correct in a lot of ways.  It's just that we KNOW there are difficulties in proving morality, but unprovable religion contributes nothing to the conversation to get us to the conclusion that morality can't be proven.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

You certainly aren't dumb, but I'll give you two reasons why your post is not really relevant, yet.

1) We haven't given Kshartle a chance to logically prove self-ownership.  The whole reason for this thread was to give him a chance to do so.  I agree that I think anarcho-capitalism "invents" morality as a provable concept.

2) You and your friends can't prove God exists, either, nor (especially) what he wants.  So we're all on the same footing of basically trying to make an "educated guess" at morality.


He does have a monumental task ahead of him... and we haven't even gotten to all those gritty gray areas yet (I don't think we'll need to).

But so do you!  You want us all to believe in something pretty close to your One Moral Truth, that you express in other threads, yet you can't prove it is the One Moral Truth.

I just want us to find out when we have conclusions (that end up being premises in various other arguments) that aren't provable, and to have us all admit the shakiness of those premises.

So Mountaineer, if you don't think morality can be proven logically, it 1) doesn't mean it doesn't exist without God, 2) Doesn't mean God does exist, 3) doesn't mean you understand the will of God, if he does exist, and 4) doesn't mean we can't debunk Kshartle's proof without trying to throw out God-based premises that can't be proven, or meta-physical stuff.

So it's not that you and your friend/Pastors aren't correct in a lot of ways.  It's just that we KNOW there are difficulties in proving morality, but unprovable religion contributes nothing to the conversation to get us to the conclusion that morality can't be proven.

moda,

Actually I agree with almost all you said (and I'll save commenting on the non-agreement parts as they are not relevant to Kshartle's mission).  I'm just trying to get the idea across that we all have faith, me in Christianity, and others in something else that for whatever reason, I sense those others choose not to talk about or explore in much depth.  As a Christian, I am genuinely curious about those "other" worldviews and why people choose them instead of accepting a few thousand years of traditional "faith" learnings; I am curious about what is so compelling about betting eternity on a potentially false worldview (with potentially really undesirable outcomes) that like Christianity, cannot be definitely proven either (or so I believe).  I'll try to hush up now and let the games continue.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that ALL we have to do is our ability to observe and study nature and our feelings (the latter mostly being internal, hard to study, and difficult to observe in an objective way).

Religious folks use those observations no different than anyone (or at least, no different to the degree that anyone else can tell).  Our "faith" (if I may speak for agnostic-types (for lack-of-a-better-term)) is to simply analyze the things we do know, and try to weigh the things we DON'T know (but feel or think might be true) against other things we don't know.

We only have so many senses and analytics we can run.  We can choose to accept the assertions of others that aren't scientifically/observably backed, but those don't hold as much weight as those that seem to have more basis in reality.  It's not about "choice" so much, but for the fact that I like to choose to base my decisions on my ability to reason, rather than the preachings of others.

I could CHOOSE the preachings, but that would be a conscious choice away from using the very gifts that my possible creator gave me.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that ALL we have to do is our ability to observe and study nature and our feelings (the latter mostly being internal, hard to study, and difficult to observe in an objective way).

Religious folks use those observations no different than anyone (or at least, no different to the degree that anyone else can tell).  Our "faith" (if I may speak for agnostic-types (for lack-of-a-better-term)) is to simply analyze the things we do know, and try to weigh the things we DON'T know (but feel or think might be true) against other things we don't know.

We only have so many senses and analytics we can run.  We can choose to accept the assertions of others that aren't scientifically/observably backed, but those don't hold as much weight as those that seem to have more basis in reality.  It's not about "choice" so much, but for the fact that I like to choose to base my decisions on my ability to reason, rather than the preachings of others.

I could CHOOSE the preachings, but that would be a conscious choice away from using the very gifts that my possible creator gave me.

moda,

Thank you for the comments.  I can kind of understand where you are coming from; it is similar to my "dry period" with religion when I thought science (science, logic, scientific method and the like) could explain everything and also saw the churches were filled with hypocrites (as I said a while back in other posts I was worshiping science and had become my own god).  Then for some reason, I came to understand revealed knowledge was also important and I embraced all the expansion of knowledge that brought in addition to depending only on science; perhaps you too someday will be led down the path I was.  It has been even more mind expanding than my science education was and which I still very highly value.

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

So like I said I've been studying the decision making process...in particular my own for the purposes of scalping very very short timeframes on the Euro and the Russell 2000.

I'll spare you all the details of the decision making process and environment assessment unless you want them but I can tell you this.......it is all a single event.

Evaluating reality (I call it situational awareness when trading), making the decision to place an order and placing the order all happen almost simultaneously. There is no break. The first "part" never stops. The second "decision" part is a conclusion based on the first never-ending process. The action of placing the order is the expression of the decision. I cannot "decide" to place an order and then not do it. That would be a decision to not place an order. And vice-versa.

When we judge an action as right or wrong we are judging the decision to act but they are one and the same. Sometimes the "deciding" takes a long time and sometimes it's a fraction of a second, a split decision. We even give people more leeway when realize they had to make a split decision. Why? The action is the same?

We are judging the decision but there is no decision without an expression of that decision. This can be to act or not act.

Does that make sense?

Also, you might be completely insane Moda and taking me with you.

[Kshartle]

"ought" is just the natural extension of the concept of correctness. If something is correct that's what we ought to do by definition and vice versa. We ought to do it because it's right. Gee...how do I explain this?

I think it is simpler than you think. Ought is just a word used to describe the concept that if an action is correct that's what we should do. That's what correct means with regards to an action. A correct action is what we ought to do (this is just another definition of a correct action) and we ought to do what is correct.

[Mountaineer]

"ought" is just the natural extension of the concept of correctness. If something is correct that's what we ought to do by definition and vice versa. We ought to do it because it's right. Gee...how do I explain this?

I think it is simpler than you think. Ought is just a word used to describe the concept that if an action is correct that's what we should do. That's what correct means with regards to an action. A correct action is what we ought to do (this is just another definition of a correct action) and we ought to do what is correct.

What is your "stake in the ground" by which you are measuring correct, ought, right, wrong, etc.?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

"ought" is just the natural extension of the concept of correctness. If something is correct that's what we ought to do by definition and vice versa. We ought to do it because it's right. Gee...how do I explain this?

I think it is simpler than you think. Ought is just a word used to describe the concept that if an action is correct that's what we should do. That's what correct means with regards to an action. A correct action is what we ought to do (this is just another definition of a correct action) and we ought to do what is correct.

Correct in what context though? 

If I inhale under water I partook in that action. It happened in reality. It is correct that it happened.  An action can only be incorrect if you apply it to some other ought.  As in, "I ought to maximize my happiness," or whatever. But then we're back to square one.

A decision about the state of nature or reality can be correct or incorrect. But a decision about an action to take (May happen quick but this is another decision) requires an ought.

If all I know is that "I can breath underwater," (which is an incorrect decision about reality), I still need a subjective "ought" premise to drive my decision to go into the water. 

So the only way an action decision can be correct is if we assume the validity of some "ought" premise like "I ought to do what makes me happy."

Those premises are neither provable or self-evident as far as I can tell.

[Kshartle]

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.

Fact, truth, correctness and the like 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. If I really prefer chocolate then it’s a fact I prefer chocolate and true that I prefer chocolate. That is the reality of the situation.

11. Money shot - Something is “right”? when it’s in accordance with objective reality and “wrong”? when it’s not in conformity with reality and our opinions can’t change that.

[Kshartle]

"ought" is just the natural extension of the concept of correctness. If something is correct that's what we ought to do by definition and vice versa. We ought to do it because it's right. Gee...how do I explain this?

I think it is simpler than you think. Ought is just a word used to describe the concept that if an action is correct that's what we should do. That's what correct means with regards to an action. A correct action is what we ought to do (this is just another definition of a correct action) and we ought to do what is correct.

Correct in what context though? 

If I inhale under water I partook in that action. It happened in reality. It is correct that it happened.  An action can only be incorrect if you apply it to some other ought.  As in, "I ought to maximize my happiness," or whatever. But then we're back to square one.

A decision about the state of nature or reality can be correct or incorrect. But a decision about an action to take (May happen quick but this is another decision) requires an ought.

If all I know is that "I can breath underwater," (which is an incorrect decision about reality), I still need a subjective "ought" premise to drive my decision to go into the water. 

So the only way an action decision can be correct is if we assume the validity of some "ought" premise like "I ought to do what makes me happy."

Those premises are neither provable or self-evident as far as I can tell.

My gut feeling was right. You are completely insane. 

I'm going give you a little room to see if you can work this out and understand the meaning of right and wrong or correct and incorrect. You are philosophizing your brains out.

[Kshartle]

Mountaineer........

You believe God exists. You believe that is reality. This is your interpretation of reality. Therefore to you it's correct and true that God exists and it's right/correct to act accordingly. We "ought" to act in accordance with the reality of God's existance and everything related to that concept. This is no different from people who don't beleive who act as such. That doesn't mean we are all correct and doing what's right though. If you say 2+2=4 and I say 2+2=5 we can't both be right, even though we can both be wrong.

I don't mean this to be insulting I mean it as an easy to understand example: The Mayans believed if they sacrificed children it would bring the rain or whatever. To them that was the right thing to do because it was in accordance with reality as they perceived it. Were the sacrifices right or wrong or neither? Why?

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer........

You believe God exists. You believe that is reality. This is your interpretation of reality. Therefore to you it's correct and true that God exists and it's right/correct to act accordingly. We "ought" to act in accordance with the reality of God's existance and everything related to that concept. This is no different from people who don't beleive who act as such. That doesn't mean we are all correct and doing what's right though. If you say 2+2=4 and I say 2+2=5 we can't both be right, even though we can both be wrong.

I don't mean this to be insulting I mean it as an easy to understand example: The Mayans believed if they sacrificed children it would bring the rain or whatever. To them that was the right thing to do because it was in accordance with reality as they perceived it. Were the sacrifices right or wrong or neither? Why?

Kshartle,

I believe you are hung up on my faith.  My question about your "stake in the ground" does not have to have anything whatsoever to do with religion.

I am asking how you personally measure "right, wrong, correct, ought, etc.", i.e how far is whatever you are determining is correct, etc., from the origin (stake in the ground).  If you have no firm foundation from which to measure, that to me is like being adrift in the ocean on an iceberg and trying to tell someone how far it is to New York.  The answer will continually change.  So again, in what do you place your faith for that foundation, or what is the foundation, from which you are determining correct, etc.?

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

So again, in what do you place your faith for that foundation, or what is the foundation, from which you are determining correct, etc.?

... Mountaineer

My ability to perceive reality and use reason to figure out what is correct.

I'm not hung up on it. I'm just saying we are exactly the same. Everyone is. We are all acting on our beliefs. That doesn't mean we are all right all the time though.

I suppose we are different in that I am relying on myself to perceive reality and use my own reason and I think you are relying on others (the writers of the bible, pastors, friends, people throughout history etc.). You are relying on their beliefs and perceptions and decisions about what is correct and having faith that they are correct. It is not faith in God it is faith in other men's ideas about God. To me that seems irrationale.

[Xan]

Suppose I have terminal cancer, and a month to live, leaving my family destitute.  Bill Gates offers to give ten million dollars to my family if I go and breathe underwater.  I know it'll kill me, and by your objective definition of "accordance with reality", then this is, no matter what, the "wrong" decision.  But is it really so easy?  It depends on the context.  What "ought" I to do in this scenario?

[Xan]

I'm just saying we are exactly the same. Everyone is. We are all acting on our beliefs. That doesn't mean we are all right all the time though.

This is what I've been saying the whole time!  The difference is that we don't believe our views are provable.  We can tell people about them, but it's not up to us to create faith.  But you believe that your premises and conclusions are so ironclad and irrefutable that nobody can disagree.

[moda0306]

K,

A conclusion about reality can be correct or incorrect, but a conclusion about an action to take has to have a subjective value-judgement qualifier in it.

So a conclusion about an action you "ought" to take can be incorrect if you identify an incorrect premise "I can breathe underwater."  However, since you CAN'T have a preferred action based on physical facts alone, I don't think action conclusions can be reached without some sort of subjective "ought"... You need a statement to guide action like "I ought to maximize my happiness."

Otherwise a conclusion has no basis on which to occur. I could be the smartest guy in the world, and have a ton of near-perfect interpretations of reality, but without some behavior-guiding principal, you don't have an implied "ought" out of the other end of the logic.

Thinking that I can breathe underwater is incorrect, but I can't reach an action conclusion until I apply some subjective "ought" principal to measure against my understanding of the world. 

So you're conflating the part of the logic that interprets the world, including cause and effect, and the fact that we control our bodies, with the piece that measures those interpretations against some "preferred state."

Well that preferred state may be grounded in reality in that everyone does measure and value it, but there is no (as of yet in your argument) logically preferable state like "minimizing chances of death."

So I would state that based on the premises we've discovered so far, a decision (conclusion) on a course of action can only be proven incorrect due to an untrue premise (breathing under water), but can't be proven "correct," unless you can "prove" the preferred state premise, which sort of sounds like the
building block of morality. This is exactly what I'm arguing can't really be proven, or that I haven't seen it proven yet.

[Kshartle]

So I would state that based on the premises we've discovered so far, a decision (conclusion) on a course of action can only be proven incorrect due to an untrue premise (breathing under water), but can't be proven "correct," unless you can "prove" the preferred state premise, which sort of sounds like the
building block of morality. This is exactly what I'm arguing can't really be proven, or that I haven't seen it proven yet.

At this point I'm fine with the idea that a decision can be proven objectively wrong but not nessecarily proven right. I'll ponder your points a little but I'm ok for now with this agreement.

Unless you have another mind blast stream of conciousness to diareah on me. Holy moses. I appreciate it.

[moda0306]

So I would state that based on the premises we've discovered so far, a decision (conclusion) on a course of action can only be proven incorrect due to an untrue premise (breathing under water), but can't be proven "correct," unless you can "prove" the preferred state premise, which sort of sounds like the
building block of morality. This is exactly what I'm arguing can't really be proven, or that I haven't seen it proven yet.

At this point I'm fine with the idea that a decision can be proven objectively wrong but not nessecarily proven right. I'll ponder your points a little but I'm ok for now with this agreement.

Unless you have another mind blast stream of conciousness to diareah on me. Holy moses. I appreciate it.

I think that's about all the diarrhea I've got for a bit.

Though if a decision can't be proven right, and I'm "correct" about why this is so (because it MUST contain a subjective value-statement/preferred-state, and these are unprovable), then any statement built on a preferred-state is unproveable.  A decision is only provably WRONG if it contains an incorrect interpretation of reality, but what led you to agree with my assertion (it seems) is that "preferred states" drive all decisions, and that they are unprovable.

Ok maybe I'm not done.

Cuz you may have just admitted that we can't prove morality .


I really think what this is going to come down to, K, is that you're going to have to prove a "preferred-state" to build your assertion of self-ownership on top of, since this seems to be a necessary aspect of ALL decisions, moral or not.

And from what I can tell, this is really friggin' difficult, or, dare I say, impossible .

[Kshartle]

I can honestly say I think I've learned some things so far in this thread.

For me that's the entire point of coming here so that's good.

[moda0306]

I can honestly say I think I've learned some things so far in this thread.

For me that's the entire point of coming here so that's good.

I have too.  I can't thank you enough for humoring me and going through this rigorously.

[Kshartle]

So I would state that based on the premises we've discovered so far, a decision (conclusion) on a course of action can only be proven incorrect due to an untrue premise (breathing under water), but can't be proven "correct," unless you can "prove" the preferred state premise, which sort of sounds like the
building block of morality. This is exactly what I'm arguing can't really be proven, or that I haven't seen it proven yet.

At this point I'm fine with the idea that a decision can be proven objectively wrong but not nessecarily proven right. I'll ponder your points a little but I'm ok for now with this agreement.

Unless you have another mind blast stream of conciousness to diareah on me. Holy moses. I appreciate it.

I haven't given up on this completely though I am going to move on.

That being said.....the idea that decisions can be proven wrong but not proven correct could imply the existance only of immoral actions and by default everything else would be moral but there would be no duty neccessarily to do anything other than a duty to not do what is immoral.

This would actually help me understand my gut feeling that we do not have a duty to help others and that this is not a moral issue, it's a function of the other stuff I spoke about in that other thread (helping others is right when the risk/sacrifice is less than the reward and we correctly identify the ratio).

I defer to my gut less than I probably should. I find when I really disect the issue there is a logical reason for my gut feeling being correct (in accordance with reality yada yada.....)