"assuming that [they believe] objective morality is true, which I don't think so"

[Rapier]

Maybe I should've left it at that, but this is too interesting and enticing for me to just give up on the matter.

If an objective morality doesn't exist, then what is there to claim that any crime is inherently bad? In a simplified way, what makes the act of stealing, murdering and raping wrong if there is no such a thing as an objective morality to establish conduct orders? If there is no such a thing as objective morality, then everything and anything is valid, and there is no compass to judge what is morally right or wrong. Based on these relativist thoughts, anything is valid, even the most disgusting actions and conducts.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Rapier

[Book of Ereshkigal]

Well, yeah. Most "bad" things were made up because they effect human society negatively. The claim that it is bad comes from something's effect on society, and if it has a desirable result.

If you kill someone, that makes people feel negative emotions, as well as robbing the community of the resources that person could provide, for example.

Edited September 26, 2014 by L95

[Chiki]

Maybe I should've left it at that, but this is too interesting and enticing for me to just give up on the matter.

If an objective morality doesn't exist, then what is there to claim that any crime is inherently bad? In a simplified way, what makes the act of stealing, murdering and raping wrong if there is no such a thing as an objective morality to establish conduct orders? If there is no such a thing as objective morality, then everything and anything is valid, and there is no compass to judge what is morally right or wrong. Based on these relativist thoughts, anything is valid, even the most disgusting actions and conducts.

First, you mean subjectivism instead of relativism. Relativism is the view that moral claims vary in truth from community to community or from individual to individual depending on the view. It's completely mind-independent, thus is a version of moral realism. Subjectivism is the view that moral claims are mind-dependent and their truths vary depending on what goes through our heads. To say that there is no objective morality is not to say that moral subjectivism is true. Here's a few versions of moral anti-realism:

1. Moral noncognitivism: The view that moral claims are expressions of emotions. To say that "murder is wrong" is to say that "murder!!!" in a disapproving tone.

2. Moral error theorist: The view that moral claims attempt to aim at truth, but fail.

3. Moral subjectivism: The view that moral claims do not exist in the concrete sense, but in the subjective sense, or in a person's mind.

A person can be an antirealist without being a subjectivist.

Second, it seems possible to create a compass to judge what is right or wrong. For example, we use mathematics, an invented language, to express truths about reality. If you start doing math at more advanced levels, you'll start being introduced to formal systems to derive certain mathematical truths. A famous example of this are Peano's axioms (premises taken for granted, just assumed to be true with no further discussion) which derive truths like 1 + 1 = 2 from axioms like (x+y=y+x and x' (the successor of x) = x + 1) and so on. But the process of picking axioms is completely subjective and completely a matter of opinion. So in this regard mathematics is not really any more objective than ethics or aesthetics. Why not do the same for ethics?

[dondon151]

there is no objective morality, but there is an innate tendency for certain kinds of actions to be regarded as right or wrong. morality is an evolved trait.

EDIT: chiki's analogy to mathematical axioms is a good one.

Edited September 26, 2014 by dondon151

[Rapier]

Chiki, you got too carried away lecturing me and missed the point entirely. What I am arguing is that, without an universally valid morality, even the most disgusting actions and conducts are valid depending on one's point of view or whatever their society judge as right or wrong. This is the core of my argument, which you haven't addressed.

there is no objective morality, but there is an innate tendency for certain kinds of actions to be regarded as right or wrong. morality is an evolved trait.

EDIT: chiki's analogy to mathematical axioms is a good one.

Based on what? Many centuries ago we believed that slavery was okay, our innate tendencies did nothing to point out how cruel and inhumane such practice was. And this is only one example, to keep it short and concise. Our mere common sense is not enough of a compass to follow and comprehend what is right or wrong.

Mathematical axioms may be used to find out truths, but are they capable of mapping what is right and what is wrong? Merely knowing that something is true does not have an effect on determining if such practice is right or wrong. Truths are morally/ethically null by themselves.

[Chiki]

Chiki, you got too carried away lecturing me and missed the point entirely. What I am arguing is that, without an universally valid morality, even the most disgusting actions and conducts are valid depending on one's point of view or whatever their society judge as right or wrong. This is the core of my argument, which you haven't addressed.

Based on what? Many centuries ago we believed that slavery was okay, our innate tendencies did nothing to point out how cruel and inhumane such practice was. And this is only one example, to keep it short and concise. Our mere common sense is not enough of a compass to follow and comprehend what is right or wrong.

Mathematical axioms may be used to find out truths, but are they capable of mapping what is right and what is wrong? Merely knowing that something is true does not have an effect on determining if such practice is right or wrong. Truths are morally/ethically null by themselves.

My goodness, you obviously don't understand my "lecture" if you keep repeating this crap. I'll explain it as simply as I can. What you're assuming here is that moral antirealism (thinking there is no objective morality) leads to the view that morality is subjective. Wrong. There are views on which morality is neither subjective or objective. Is this clear enough? You'll need several years of reading before I can have a proper debate with you, it seems.

Mathematical axioms are not capable of finding what is right and wrong. Axioms may be. Axiomatic systems of morality already exist (utilitarianism and deontic ethics, among others).

Second bolded part: I'm amazed at how you can be so ignorant about ethics and so insistently keep posting on and on about it. Consider the sentence "Killing is wrong." If this sentence is objectively true, then obviously that has an effect on determining if such a practice is right or wrong. =_=

[dondon151]

Based on what? Many centuries ago we believed that slavery was okay, our innate tendencies did nothing to point out how cruel and inhumane such practice was. And this is only one example, to keep it short and concise. Our mere common sense is not enough of a compass to follow and comprehend what is right or wrong.

uh i obviously did not say anything about slavery. what the hell?

most people have the innate sense that killing members of an in-group is wrong. they also understand that it's right to take care of one's relatives. a society that condoned indiscriminate killing of in-group members would self-destruct, so evolution would select against people who lacked that sense. a society where parents didn't take care of their young would also self-destruct, so evolution would select against people who did not possess that tendency. this is what i mean when i say that morality is an evolved trait.

Second bolded part: I'm amazed at how you can be so ignorant about ethics and so insistently keep posting on and on about it.

you'd think he would have learned something from his embarrassment in the pornography thread.

Edited September 26, 2014 by dondon151

[Rapier]

My goodness, you obviously don't understand my "lecture" if you keep repeating this crap. I'll explain it as simply as I can. What you're assuming here is that moral antirealism (thinking there is no objective morality) leads to the view that morality is subjective. Wrong. There are views on which morality is neither subjective or objective. Is this clear enough? You'll need several years of reading before I can have a proper debate with you, it seems.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that without an objective morality, then anything is morally justifiable. I'm talking about moral relativism, not moral subjectivism; you decided to put words in my mouth on your own accord. I'd expect you to understand a simple statement, but it seems you can't.

Second bolded part: I'm amazed at how you can be so ignorant about ethics and so insistently keep posting on and on about it. Consider the sentence "Killing is wrong." If this sentence is objectively true, then obviously that has an effect on determining if such a practice is right or wrong. =_=

Again, how can you know that killing is wrong without an objective morality? That is the damn point.

uh i obviously did not say anything about slavery. what the hell?

most people have the innate sense that killing members of an in-group is wrong. they also understand that it's right to take care of one's relatives. a society that condoned indiscriminate killing of in-group members would self-destruct, so evolution would select against people who lacked that sense. a society where parents didn't take care of their young would also self-destruct, so evolution would select against people who did not possess that tendency. this is what i mean when i say that morality is an evolved trait.

What part of "this is an example" did you not understand? You're starting to nitpick at unimportant details in a very pedantic way. Way to show off intelectual dishonesty.

I'll point out the core of that argument again: Humanity's "self conscious sense of ethics" was not enough to declare slavery as wrong (again, this is just an example)! Therefore, your defense of innate tendencies making us perfectly capable of judging right from wrong is flawed! Please don't make me draw it, as I'm not good with Microsoft Paint at all.

you'd think he would have learned something from his embarrassment in the pornography thread.

Personal attacks are so low that I'd be legitimately surprised if only I wasn't familiarized with the concept of polictical war.

[Chiki]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that without an objective morality, then anything is morally justifiable. I'm talking about moral relativism, not moral subjectivism; you decided to put words in my mouth on your own accord. I'd expect you to understand a simple statement, but it seems you can't.

*sigh* I'm trying to tell you that you don't even know the definitions of the terms you're using. Moral relativism is not a version of antirealism (the view that there is no objective morality). Moral relativism is a version of moral realism. Relativists think that there is an objective morality. So you cannot say that antirealism leads to relativism. This is so basic that it's not clear to me what you don't understand.

Second, just because people don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean that they are subjectivists. They can also believe that even subjectivity can't justify moral claims--they can be a member of the other two camps I posted.

Again, how can you know that killing is wrong without an objective morality? That is the damn point.

How can you know that 1+1=2 without objective math?

[dondon151]

Therefore, your defense of innate tendencies making us perfectly capable of judging right from wrong is flawed! Please don't make me draw it, as I'm not good with Microsoft Paint at all.

i couldn't care less if you did try to draw it; that's not what i said at all. can you read?

EDIT: to clarify, i already said this in the other thread, none of which i think registered with you after i chewed you out for offensive and incorrect assumptions. babies exhibit moral behavior. monkeys exhibit moral behavior. babies are not taught right from wrong in the obvious sense, and monkeys are presumably never curious about where their morals come from. that's ample evidence for innate morality, which, though not objective, is fairly consistent.

Edited September 27, 2014 by dondon151

[Makaze]

Based on what? Many centuries ago we believed that slavery was okay, our innate tendencies did nothing to point out how cruel and inhumane such practice was. And this is only one example, to keep it short and concise. Our mere common sense is not enough of a compass to follow and comprehend what is right or wrong.

Mathematical axioms may be used to find out truths, but are they capable of mapping what is right and what is wrong? Merely knowing that something is true does not have an effect on determining if such practice is right or wrong. Truths are morally/ethically null by themselves.

The core morals exist by evolutionary necessity. Branches of our species that did not have an innate value against murder would not survive due to infighting and endless cycles of revenge. Compared to morals against murder and theft, cruelty and fairness to outsiders are mostly irrelevant to the survival of the species.

Slavery of other races is in line with evolutionary incentives to continue one's own genetic heritage at the expense of others. There are species of ants who are highly specialized to be composed almost entirely of warriors. They survive in their natural ecosystem by stealing the eggs of other species of ants and raising the young of those species to be their workers. If the slave species acts out they are killed by the warrior species. If the warrior species stops enslaving weaker species, it will starve out and die. Meanwhile, a warrior ant that kills a fellow warrior will be killed by its own species.

Many humans developed in a similar way to these ants. Where the ants developed simple instincts to keep them from killing each other, humans have more complex systems of thought due to introspection. Morality was probably born out of introspection about these innate instincts.

About Maths: Maths is not true unless we assume those axioms without proof. Those axioms are unproven and unprovable by their nature. Many different proofs for mathematics have been presented, but they all fail to be complete at a basic level due to relying on axioms. In other words, it is possible for other valid systems to exist. Maths is a system we humans developed and came to an agreement on out of necessity, not objective truth.

In theory, humans should be able to construct a moral theory by assuming basic axioms the same way they did with the core of mathematics.

This is not possible in my opinion. Morality does not share a common perception or logic like mathematics does. While mathematics relies on axioms, they are axioms that are inherent to the way our minds work. It does not seem possible for us to think outside of the constraints of mathematics. Morality has no such common system. Even the most basic morals such as those against murder are only true on a grand social scale. There are exceptions to that moral rule within public opinion and private opinion alike. We interpret the world in mathematics and have no choice in the matter. It is intrinsic to our being. Morality is not. Morality is something that we impose upon our environment based on the way we would prefer things to be rather than the way things are. We are perfectly capable of imagining and comprehending alternative moralities. It is not a universal necessity. Even in our own lives, our personal morals change when our desires change or when we find that our moral rules do not truly serve our desires. There can be no true agreement while the range of human ambition remains so limitless.

It is impossible for all humans to agree on even something as basic as that that which helps survival is morally good. Not all people have self-preservation or care for the survival of others. Species-preserving morality persists because it aids natural selection, but it is has never been consistent and cannot be said to be objectively good simply because of its survival value.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Makaze

[Makaze]

*sigh* I'm trying to tell you that you don't even know the definitions of the terms you're using. Moral relativism is not a version of antirealism (the view that there is no objective morality). Moral relativism is a version of moral realism. Relativists think that there is an objective morality. So you cannot say that antirealism leads to relativism. This is so basic that it's not clear to me what you don't understand.

Second, just because people don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean that they are subjectivists. They can also believe that even subjectivity can't justify moral claims--they can be a member of the other two camps I posted.

How can you know that 1+1=2 without objective math?

Hmm. I'm not so sure about these definitions of subjective and relative...? Consider the following argument:

So this is where I would like to point out that subjective/objective have multiple meanings depending on context. I believe in modern ethical literature they draw the distinction between whether something is or isn't right or wrong relative to the moral agent.

So if something is wrong for me to do and right for you to do, it is agent relative. Historically some might have called this subjective, because it depends on the subject of the moral action.

However, it is not subjective in the epistemological sense. Your anger is subjective. It is not directly knowable to me what you are feeling. By contrast, if moral status of an action was agent-relative, it could still be knowable to both you and me, - that it is wrong for me to do and right for you to do.

Agent-neutral versus agent relative avoids these historical confusions between ontological and epistemological subjectivity/objectivity.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-agent/

Under this distinction, moral subjectivism is closer to moral relativism; they are both misnomers. Isn't that simply a clash of definitions, not meaning?

Edited October 4, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

Many different proofs for mathematics have been presented, but they all fail to be complete at a basic level

? What's a proof for mathematics as a whole? There's no such thing and no mathematician has attempted to "prove mathematics."

This is not possible in my opinion. Morality does not share a common perception or logic like mathematics does. While mathematics relies on axioms, they are axioms that are inherent to the way our minds work. It does not seem possible for us to think outside of the constraints of mathematics. Morality has no such common system. Even the most basic morals such as those against murder are only true on a grand social scale. There are exceptions to that moral rule within public opinion and private opinion alike. We interpret the world in mathematics and have no choice in the matter. It is intrinsic to our being. Morality is not. Morality is something that we impose upon our environment based on the way we would prefer things to be rather than the way things are. We are perfectly capable of imagining and comprehending alternative moralities. It is not a universal necessity. Even in our own lives, our personal morals change when our desires change or when we find that our moral rules do not truly serve our desires. There can be no true agreement while the range of human ambition remains so limitless.

This is a very common misconception. As a matter of fact, it's empirically proven that there are tribes of people out there with different conceptions of logic and numbers. Some Amazonian tribes, for example, have no understanding of numbers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3347383/Amazon-tribe-has-no-words-for-different-numbers.html

East Asians also seem to reason differently than us Americans do. For example, a sentence of the form "Peano is Italian" for East Asians is false, because East Asians tend to associate the name "Peano" with the definite description "the founder of the Peano axioms" and the founder of the Peano axioms is Dedekind, and not Peano. On the other hand, Americans tend to associate the name "Peano" directly with its bearer, the dude Peano. You can imagine how much this will affect reasoning for various kinds of arguments.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/Publications/Papers/SemanticIntuitions.pdf

Under this distinction, moral subjectivism is closer to moral relativism; they are both misnomers. Isn't that simply a clash of definitions, not meaning?

I simply took my prior definitions from the Stanford Encyclopedia, so there's no controversy here. What you're pointing to is something in a different realm. Ethicists tend to use the same word for different concepts often, as confusing as it is.

[Makaze]

? What's a proof for mathematics as a whole? There's no such thing and no mathematician has attempted to "prove mathematics."

This is a very common misconception. As a matter of fact, it's empirically proven that there are tribes of people out there with different conceptions of logic and numbers. Some Amazonian tribes, for example, have no understanding of numbers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3347383/Amazon-tribe-has-no-words-for-different-numbers.html

East Asians also seem to reason differently than us Americans do. For example, a sentence of the form "Peano is Italian" for East Asians is false, because East Asians tend to associate the name "Peano" with the definite description "the founder of the Peano axioms" and the founder of the Peano axioms is Dedekind, and not Peano. On the other hand, Americans tend to associate the name "Peano" directly with its bearer, the dude Peano. You can imagine how much this will affect reasoning for various kinds of arguments.

As I understand it, several people have attempted to derive the rules of arithmetic from pure reason. Peano's axioms, which you referenced, are examples of the groundwork used for such logical derivations. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding about the definition of mathematics. In any case I am referring to a similar thing.

About the misconception, that is very interesting. I can't help but notice that these groups still have a concept of logic and quantity, if not standalone quantitative identity. The relative and distinct concepts of 'less' and 'more' are important to the basis of number theory. It seems undeniable that binary logic is an implicit requirement for temporal perception and thought, and that this at least shows across all groups.

As for the "Peano is Italian" example, I do not see how these would affect the actual mechanics of the reasoning. For example, while each group may associate the name with a different person, that does not necessarily mean that they will use different logical rules to reach their conclusion. It seems to me that the way "Peano is Italian" is interpreted depends on differences in the the perceived premises rather than differences in the rules that are applied to said premises. Or at least not mutually exclusive sets of rules (since they could each use different subsets of the whole system to tackle the same problem).

Edited October 5, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

As I understand it, several people have attempted to derive the rules of arithmetic from pure reason. Peano's axioms, which you referenced, are examples of the groundwork used for such logical derivations. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding about the definition of mathematics. In any case I am referring to a similar thing.

What you're talking about is the attempt to reduce mathematics into logic by Russell and so on. That certainly is not synonymous with "proving mathematics." And I don't think those attempts were failures at all.

I can't help but notice that these groups still have a concept of logic and quantity, if not standalone quantitative identity.

The meaning of a proper name doesn't have anything to do with identity here. The meaning of the proper name simply changes the object that the name refers to.

It seems undeniable that binary logic is an implicit requirement for temporal perception and thought, and that this at least shows across all groups.

Maybe, but your claim was a much stronger and general claim than that:

Morality does not share a common perception or logic like mathematics does.

And it also seems obvious that some kind of morality is an implicit requirement for the survival of the species. You said this yourself. While it is true that some aspects of morality are incredibly controversial, some aspects of daily reasoning and mathematics can be just as controversial to others--the meaning of proper names, the truth value of presuppositions (which I will give an example of below), and so on.

I do not see how these would affect the actual mechanics of the reasoning.

Reasoning is a very loose term, and does not need to apply merely to logical rules. If we take reasoning to mean the capacity to make sense of things and use logic, we can include the knowledge of premises such as "the meaning of a proper name is a description" in this definition. However, if you're only concerned with the very mechanics of reasoning, then here's an example:

What is the truth value of this sentence? "The Prime Minister of the United States is gay."

It is extremely controversial if this sentence is false or meaningless between everyday people (seems to be an even 50/50 split). People have attempted to come up with many different logical systems to explain this phenomenon, in which there are truth values apart from the generic T and F. Some people seem to just have some sort of different logical systems in their heads. I, for instance, think pretty clearly that this sentence is meaningless, but there are others out there who are convinced that it is just false.

Another sentence: "The Prime Minister of the United States is bald AND 1+1 = 2." Is this sentence true, false, or meaningless? I think it's meaningless, but people might have different truth values for conjunctions: some people might think a meaningless sentence conjoined with a true sentence is meaningless, some might think it's false, some might even think it's true. What does this have to do with logical rules? If the sentence is true, then conjoining any meaningless sentence with a true sentence is a valid logical rule. If the sentence is false, then it is not. And so on.

[Rapier]

I'll try spending my two cents again, if only to question some of the arguments presented here and take this as an opportunity to learn more, since this topic has been more informative than I thought it'd be.

Leaving technical terms aside, if a certain group on a society has a different morality than another group in the same society, won't there be disorder? It has been happening quite oftenly in Europe with the rising muslim growth on western countries. I acknowledge it can be attributed to radicalism instead of discrepancy in beliefs, yet I can see the conflict in an hypothetic society where certain people believe slavery is morally right while others believe the opposite.

Also, if we were to believe that morally right is just what helps our survival, then atrocities which help our survival are also morally right. What about values? Where do they enter?

[Makaze]

What you're talking about is the attempt to reduce mathematics into logic by Russell and so on. That certainly is not synonymous with "proving mathematics." And I don't think those attempts were failures at all.

The meaning of a proper name doesn't have anything to do with identity here. The meaning of the proper name simply changes the object that the name refers to.

Maybe, but your claim was a much stronger and general claim than that:

Morality does not share a common perception or logic like mathematics does.

And it also seems obvious that some kind of morality is an implicit requirement for the survival of the species. You said this yourself. While it is true that some aspects of morality are incredibly controversial, some aspects of daily reasoning and mathematics can be just as controversial to others--the meaning of proper names, the truth value of presuppositions (which I will give an example of below), and so on.

I already stated in my original post that I agree it is a requirement for the survival of the species. In order to assert that this is common (in the sense that I meant common), I would need for it to be impossible or unimaginable for one not to care about the survival of the species. That is not the case. Morality is necessary relative to certain goals, but are those goals in and of themselves necessary for the individual to continue existing on their own merit? I don't think so. Sociopaths and other anti-social types may do perfectly well on their own without need for morality.

Reasoning is a very loose term, and does not need to apply merely to logical rules. If we take reasoning to mean the capacity to make sense of things and use logic, we can include the knowledge of premises such as "the meaning of a proper name is a description" in this definition. However, if you're only concerned with the very mechanics of reasoning, then here's an example:

What is the truth value of this sentence? "The Prime Minister of the United States is gay."

It is extremely controversial if this sentence is false or meaningless between everyday people (seems to be an even 50/50 split). People have attempted to come up with many different logical systems to explain this phenomenon, in which there are truth values apart from the generic T and F. Some people seem to just have some sort of different logical systems in their heads. I, for instance, think pretty clearly that this sentence is meaningless, but there are others out there who are convinced that it is just false.

Another sentence: "The Prime Minister of the United States is bald AND 1+1 = 2." Is this sentence true, false, or meaningless? I think it's meaningless, but people might have different truth values for conjunctions: some people might think a meaningless sentence conjoined with a true sentence is meaningless, some might think it's false, some might even think it's true. What does this have to do with logical rules? If the sentence is true, then conjoining any meaningless sentence with a true sentence is a valid logical rule. If the sentence is false, then it is not. And so on.

That raises an interesting point but I hope it is not a matter of debate that the concept 'The Prime Minister of the United States' is meaningless and has no referent completely independent of the statement. Gayness, however, has meaning. In that sense, the original sentence is already a mixing of a valid concept and an invalid concept just like the two sentences used later. After that, the controversy comes down to whether or not a statement including a meaningless concept can have meaning despite it.

It seems silly to acknowledge a statement when necessary information is not given. Example: "P is gay." True or false?

What you don't know is that I know someone whose name is P. You most likely do not. I can definitely state its true/false state. You cannot. Even so, your inability to discern it does not mean that my answer is a lie. Therefore the problem is that, at least from your perspective, I did not even make a complete statement. The subject is as good as missing.

If the subject of the statement is not understood by anyone, it can be classified an incomplete statement. Have at this: " is gay." True or false?

Like you, I see no reason why a meaningless concept should be given meaning by the context it is used in. Therefore I presume that any statement containing a meaningless concept is rendered meaningless by containing it.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Makaze

[Makaze]

I'll try spending my two cents again, if only to question some of the arguments presented here and take this as an opportunity to learn more, since this topic has been more informative than I thought it'd be.

Leaving technical terms aside, if a certain group on a society has a different morality than another group in the same society, won't there be disorder? It has been happening quite oftenly in Europe with the rising muslim growth on western countries. I acknowledge it can be attributed to radicalism instead of discrepancy in beliefs, yet I can see the conflict in an hypothetic society where certain people believe slavery is morally right while others believe the opposite.

Also, if we were to believe that morally right is just what helps our survival, then atrocities which help our survival are also morally right. What about values? Where do they enter?

There will be disorder, but why ask that? You might ask, is that disorder moral or immoral? That's harder to say. From one perspective, it may be seen as moral because it is a result of moral actions. In that case there are no right or wrong sides because they are both right simply for fighting over their convictions. Most concepts of morality don't agree with that, but there isn't an easy way to refute it either.

Morals and values are essentially the same thing. The moral rule 'killing is wrong' stems from the conviction that 'living is valued/valuable'. The more we value living, the more wrong killing is. I would say that morality is how we impose our values onto the world.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

That raises an interesting point but I hope it is not a matter of debate that the concept 'The Prime Minister of the United States' is meaningless and has no referent completely independent of the statement.

I hoped you became more modest and started admitting that you don't know everything better than thousands and thousands of established scientists and philosophers with PhDs. It's too bad I was wrong. I think I'm done with this debate after this post.

The man who is most well known for attempting to "prove mathematics," Bertrand Russell, is actually the one who thinks any sentence with a vacuous subject is false. The reasons are technical and require some depth in formal logic so I won't get into them, but he basically thinks that every sentence of the kind "the _ is _" has the logical form "there exists exactly one x such that..." which is false.

It seems silly to acknowledge a statement when necessary information is not given. Example: "P is gay." True or false?

There are sentences of the kind "The Prime Minister of the United States is bald" which are obviously false. For example, "The Prime Minister of the United States broke my TV this morning" is an empirically false fact (my TV is not broken) even though it has a vacuous subject. Also "The Prime Minister of the United States does not exist." This is true, but on your view, to say that "_ does not exist" is meaningless.

I already stated in my original post that I agree it is a requirement for the survival of the species. In order to assert that this is common (in the sense that I meant common), I would need for it to be impossible or unimaginable for one not to care about the survival of the species. That is not the case. Morality is necessary relative to certain goals, but are those goals in and of themselves necessary for the individual to continue existing on their own merit? I don't think so. Sociopaths and other anti-social types may do perfectly well on their own without need for morality.

No, but so what? The human race can't survive without morality. Cooperation is an absolute necessity, otherwise we wouldn't have evolved like this.

Human beings are the

only primate species that regularly seeks assistance

during labor and delivery.

Fossil clues also indicate that anatomy, not just our social

nature, has led human mothers—in contrast to our closest primate relatives and

almost all other mammals—to ask for

help during childbirth. Indeed, this practice of seeking assistance may have been

in place when the earliest members of our

genus, Homo,emerged and may possibly

date back to five million years ago, when

our ancestors first began to walk upright

on a regular basis.

http://www.udel.edu/anthro/krosenberg/305/RosenbergTrevathan.pdf

And what leads to this is empathy and morality. Why else would other humans help mothers give birth? Natural selection picked out the women who were more willing to help mothers give birth.

[Makaze]

I hoped you became more modest and started admitting that you don't know everything better than thousands and thousands of established scientists and philosophers with PhDs. It's too bad I was wrong. I think I'm done with this debate after this post.

The man who is most well known for attempting to "prove mathematics," Bertrand Russell, is actually the one who thinks any sentence with a vacuous subject is false. The reasons are technical and require some depth in formal logic so I won't get into them, but he basically thinks that every sentence of the kind "the _ is _" has the logical form "there exists exactly one x such that..." which is false.

There are sentences of the kind "The Prime Minister of the United States is bald" which are obviously false. For example, "The Prime Minister of the United States broke my TV this morning" is an empirically false fact (my TV is not broken) even though it has a vacuous subject. Also "The Prime Minister of the United States does not exist." This is true, but on your view, to say that "_ does not exist" is meaningless.

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you think I was being arrogant there. On one level, I was not attempting to contradict anyone; as far as I could tell I was making a distinct point that had not been addressed. On another level, I agree with Russel about that technicality. I was thinking of bringing it up myself because it seems to be a corollary of what I was saying. However I'm not sure how the relative knowledge of P's existence fits in. Wouldn't it be true or false for me and false or meaningless for you?

You raise a solid argument against my position and prove that including a vacuous subject does not invalidate the statement by itself. I was hasty in making such a judgment.

No, but so what? The human race can't survive without morality. Cooperation is an absolute necessity, otherwise we wouldn't have evolved like this.

http://www.udel.edu/anthro/krosenberg/305/RosenbergTrevathan.pdf

And what leads to this is empathy and morality. Why else would other humans help mothers give birth? Natural selection picked out the women who were more willing to help mothers give birth.

So, does the human race need to survive? Needs are relative to goals, but those goals are not universal. That casts reasonable doubt at least.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Makaze

[dondon151]

So, does the human race need to survive? Needs are relative to goals, but those goals are not universal. That casts reasonable doubt at least.

uhhh this sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. nothing needs to survive. genes don't even want to propagate themselves because they can't want anything, but it just so happens that genes that propagate themselves tend to be more abundant.

[Chiki]

To say that "the human race needs empathy to survive" is not to say that "the human race needs to survive." The former doesn't imply the latter. Presumably extremely suicidal and depressed people don't need to survive and are willing to kill themselves, but they need oxygen to survive. I also need to have my school restart their BA/MA program so I can graduate with a MA in linguistics and a BA in philosophy at the same time, but I don't need the MA in linguistics to get into grad school. You can need something for a cause without needing the cause itself.

[Makaze]

You can't use the cause as an axiom for universal morality when not everyone has the cause. When I pointed out that exceptions exist, you said, 'So what? We need it to survive as a species.' The sociopath might come back and say, 'So what? I don't need the species to survive.' It's a stalemate. Your objection to my argument against moral axioms doesn't make sense unless 'survival is good' is being assumed as an axiom itself.

[Makaze]

uhhh this sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. nothing needs to survive. genes don't even want to propagate themselves because they can't want anything, but it just so happens that genes that propagate themselves tend to be more abundant.

My first post in the thread expressed that exact view. The question was rhetorical.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

You can't use the cause as an axiom for universal morality when not everyone has the cause. When I pointed out that exceptions exist, you said, 'So what? We need it to survive as a species.' The sociopath might come back and say, 'So what? I don't need the species to survive.' It's a stalemate. Your objection to my argument against moral axioms doesn't make sense unless 'survival is good' is being assumed as an axiom itself.

I think it's time to summarize the argument I've been making here. Yes, exceptions exist and that's fine. Exceptions exist in both morality and logic. It's not a "stalemate" at all. Sociopaths are an exception that tend to get eliminated via natural selection even today (get sent to jail for life, get killed off in gang wars, etc.). If the human race were somehow composed solely of sociopaths, we'd probably die out in a few hundred years or so. You say this is proof that morality is subjective, but there are also people who seem to have different logical systems in their head, like I showed earlier. So I don't see what the problem is.

I also agree with the assertion that we need at least some form of reasoning to survive. A man completely devoid of reason would probably be like a Huntington's patient, just flailing his arms around and rolling everywhere like a maniac.

We can draw an analogy now. We see now two things in common with morality and logic: humans need at least some of both to survive, but some aspects of both are subjective and a matter of opinion. In the same way that certain aspects of morality is subjective, so is logic (like I showed earlier). It's a matter of opinion if the truth value of the sentence "The PM of the US is gay." There is no way to know if it's false or meaningless because it's so controversial. So is the truth of this sentence: "Abortion is wrong."