Is there an objective morality?

[Naughx]

Sometime wishful thinking makes you appreciate a lie more than a truth.

[Blaze The Great]

sorry for my being unclear--by "not affect anything," i meant what you kinda already said earlier. just because we come to a conclusion doesn't mean we'll follow it. if a society accepts taking people's lives willy-nilly, objective morality stating it's wrong, and the people don't change, does that conclusion actually affect anything? i know that the results of that society in terms of lives lost will differ from from cultures we know of currently, but that part's not important for the thought experiment.

i see.

Huh. Okay, I understand now. Well then in that case, no, it doesn't have any effect on those people, unless they later see the consequences of not following that and deem it immoral to kill without just cause. But my point stands, just because it has no meaning for people does not make it untrue. It may have no value, morally or otherwise, for those people, but if it was objectively moral, it would still be objectively moral.

[Makaze]

You're misunderstanding. The bike is at the back of the house. That's observable. But the "fact" the bike is at the back of the house is not observable. I'm talking about the fact as a separate entity. We can move the bike, but we cannot move the fact. The fact is.

I think I may have chosen the wrong word when I said "observe", because for the purpose of the argument I'm already assuming that the bike is there, which presupposes an observer for many people. I'm not good at ontology. But regardless, I'm pretty sure any realist will simply accept the axiom that there is a physical universe that exists with or without an observer. Or at least, a conscious observer, the whole "matter is consciousness" stuff is beyond me.

What is the difference between a fact and a concept?

I did not ask if someone wanted to live within the world though. The question was "are they equal?" And it then begs the question "why are they not equal?". You claim it's merely a difference of physical nature, but the question is vague enough to facilitate this; Phoenix himself suggested a world that could be otherwise identical, since people simply don't act on those truths.

Again, what is irrational about viewing moral sense as indicative of an objective morality? If the response is "moral senses differ between individuals", one can yet again point to individual separate and unique sensations from other senses. I'm getting the feeling that you don't even accept reality exists non relatively, which would be the real crux of the issue here, and I cannot fathom what reason one has to disbelieve things you have good reason to believe.

Your feeling is correct. I believe our senses define reality. There is no discernible difference between a consistent hallucination and an independent object. Something's existence relative to everyone else is meaningless if I cannot interact with it. I disbelieve what is useless for me to believe.

“The ultimate criterion for the goodness of a concept is not whether two people are brought into agreement but whether the scientist who uses the concept can operate successfully upon his material—all by himself if need be.”

Note the quote I responded to.

knowing the truth doesn't matter if people don't accept it.

This is clearly a view, and I am testing that view.

My bad then.

[Irysa]

Sure. In an ethics class I came up with an argument which proved that truth wasn't intrinsically valuable:

Imagine a possible world with a "truth machine." It knows every single fact about that world, (which atom moved where, in which direction, at which time, etc.). It probably knows like 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000 truths or something. There are no beings whatsoever in this world, but it's filled with stars and planets and atoms and such, on a similar scale to our universe.

Now imagine our world with our universe and such. Imagine the truth machine knew just enough truths to make his world have more intrinsic value than our world.

Which world is more valuable? Obviously world 2.

If there are actually no living beings in the truth machine's world, then the of potential for those truths is massive diminished by a lack of sentient beings. Assuming we're assigning the arbitrary limitation of there being no possible existance of life or even evolutionary development of life, then unless we're going to argue limited size universes instead of infinite, the amount of total truths in the world doesn't hold up. The specific example I was giving was to try to ask Phoenix if he didn't intuitively feel that a universe with higher amount of truth's "known" wasn't more valuable than one where they weren't known. I think you've made a me consider the whole concept of "knowing" here since unless the machine is sentient and can act/think upon what it knows, the truths may as well just be written down somewhere, which is just a state of physical existance. I'd argue that doesn't really count as "knowing" truth.

Does the truth machine have any sort of sentience? If it knows so much, it seems like it would be advanced enough to have it...

What is the difference between a fact and a concept?

Facts are memorised, concepts are understood. They're both still abstract entities by themselves.

There is no discernible difference between a consistent hallucination and an independent object.

But what reason have you to assume everything is a consistent hallucination instead of being real?

if truths can exist even if there are not conscience beings to recognize them, then sure, i think i'd agree with you. but...i think "truths" only exist because we exist. how do experts feel about this? for now, i think we'll have to agree to disagree. i don't accept that statement.

As you'd expect, it varies. Philosophy tends to have a strong anti-realist sentiment in it that plays down the role of the world, but it's not really definitive one way or the other.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Irysa

[Makaze]

Facts are memorised, concepts are understood. They're both still abstract entities by themselves.

Not what I meant. Let me put it another way: Is what defines a unicorn a fact, or a concept? How do you tell the difference?

But what reason have you to assume everything is a consistent hallucination instead of being real?

I don't have a reason to assume either way because knowing which it is has no meaning. They are identical. They function the same. What I can and do with it has meaning.

[Phoenix Wright]

If there are actually no living beings in the truth machine's world, then the of potential for those truths is massive diminished by a lack of sentient beings.

that sounds a lot like humans giving value to truths...

[Makaze]

Error theory says that there are no moral properties. "Moral error theory" is not a moral property. So "moral error theory is true" is not self-refuting.

Also, try to define what is "good" in the moral relativist view for us. For example, take the sentence "killing Jews in Nazi Germany is good." Can you define for us what good means? It obviously has to have the relativity thing in its definition.

Meta-ethical moral relativism says that moral properties exist as human constructs. "Meta-ethical moral relativism" is not a moral property. So "meta-ethical moral relativism is true" is not self-refuting.

Good in that sentence means whatever the person who said it means: the relative party is the speaker in the absence of specific agents. To suggest that it is okay in Nazi Germany ignores the relative views of the members of the nation. If you had said "it is okay relative to the views of all people in Nazi Germany to kill Jews", making a statement relative to every possible agent, it would be more applicable. False, but applicable. As-is the statement is incoherent outside of the speaker.

Assuming you meant the applicable version, it means that killing Jews does not bring moral qualms to anyone in Nazi Germany but makes them feel righteous in some way.

...Wrong. Math is intangible but it's not disputable in any way. =_= Propositions (facts) are intangible abstract objects according to some views.

Are you arguing that Math would exist even without observers to assert it? (I'm not disagreeing with you though.)

Edited July 22, 2015 by Makaze

[Irysa]

Not what I meant. Let me put it another way: Is what defines a unicorn a fact, or a concept? How do you tell the difference?

You need to be more clear about it, because it is a "fact" that a unicorn is a mythical horse with a horn on it's head.

I don't have a reason to assume either way because knowing which it is has no meaning. They are identical. They function the same. What I can and do with it has meaning.

You're evading the question. By saying "it may not be real" you are automatically putting into doubt everything you sense when there is no reason to put it into doubt in the first place. You say "there's no reason to assume either way", but I'm saying the doubt itself only exists if you create it.

that sounds a lot like humans giving value to truths...

Eh, it's not quite as rigid as that. Humans definitely arbitrarily value truths in different ways, but the reason I say truths are intrinsic is because they come before existance, that truths create potential. You have to remember I also defined conscious intelligent life as immeasurable in value, in a similar way to truth, because it also creates potential. I'm seeing a weakness in my point there though, but when all he says is "which is more valuable" it's somewhat skewed since a universe without any sentience in it is obviously less valuable, especially if we assume infinite truths within the universe itself.

That and "knowing" is sort of a property of sentience.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Irysa

[Makaze]

You need to be more clear about it, because it is a "fact" that a unicorn is a mythical horse with a horn on it's head.

You're evading the question. By saying "it may not be real" you are automatically putting into doubt everything you sense when there is no reason to put it into doubt in the first place. You say "there's no reason to assume either way", but I'm saying the doubt itself only exists if you create it.

I'm questioning what makes something real in the first place. What does it mean to be real when reality and perception are interchangeable? It means that I perceive it, and that makes it real. My perception is real. The idea that something could be real independent of my perception is just an idea I can never possibly experience. I can only perceive. My existence is limited to that. Doubting it implies there was a reason to make an assumption either way in the first place. There never was. I perceive X dependently with consistent results = I perceive X. I perceive X independently with consistent results = I perceive X. I perceive X = I perceive X. I have no reason to even consider that it could be true or false. They are the same thing. There is no meaningful distinction. The question is malformed in the first place. I can't doubt it unless I assume it must be either true or false. I don't believe it can be either of them.

Eh, it's not quite as rigid as that. Humans definitely arbitrarily value truths in different ways, but the reason I say truths are intrinsic is because they come before existance, that truths create potential. You have to remember I also defined conscious intelligent life as immeasurable in value, in a similar way to truth, because it also creates potential. I'm seeing a weakness in my point there though, but when all he says is "which is more valuable" it's somewhat skewed since a universe without any sentience in it is obviously less valuable, especially if we assume infinite truths within the universe itself.

That and "knowing" is sort of a property of sentience.

Have you considered that you are assuming free will exists in this argument?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Makaze

[Irysa]

You say the question is malformed, but the fact is that people do not intuitively doubt what they experience is not real. People assume reality is real when they are born, and as they grow. You have to reject that intuition first, which is what I would call the doubt.

[Makaze]

You say the question is malformed, but the fact is that people do not intuitively doubt what they experience is not real. People assume reality is real when they are born, and as they grow. You have to reject that intuition first, which is what I would call the doubt.

I for one have always doubted reality. I have been plagued by feelings that I am dreaming since I was a child. I've become better adjusted over time but other peoples' intuitions do not affect my own.

People intuitively have a concept of "real" being independent of themselves, but that does not make that concept meaningful. Supposing it did, we would end up right back at the observation that other intuitions exist, making them meaningful as well, therefore relativism exists.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Makaze

[Phoenix Wright]

but the reason I say truths are intrinsic is because they come before existance

how can you back up this claim?

[Irysa]

Eh, I suppose the use of the word "before" is an issue, since it's more like they're reliant on each other. My apologies. If it wasn't true that something existed, it wouldn't exist, but if it didn't exist it wouldn't be true that it existed.

I think the only thing to demonstrate that truth presupposes existance is the counterfactual "if the universe did not exist, then it would not be true that the universe existed", and that would be true even without an existing universe.

I for one have always doubted reality. I have been plagued by feelings that I am dreaming since I was a child. I've become better adjusted over time but other peoples' intuitions do not affect my own.

People intuitively have a concept of "real" being independent of themselves, but that does not make that concept meaningful. Supposing it did, we would end up right back at the observation that other intuitions exist, making them meaningful as well, therefore relativism exists.

I didn't say it made the concept meaningful, and it wasn't a proof. I'm just trying to get at the reason for doubt in the first place. One has to reject the natural intuition that reality is real in order to even say it "might" not be real.

You've given a reason, which is fine. However, if you geninuely have always doubted reality, then, with all due respect, considering how that contrasts to the rest of humanity, that probably indicates some extra factors or problems. I won't ask you to neccessarily expand on them though. I also have some doubts that you thought reality was not real during your very early years, but I can't really prove that.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Irysa

[Makaze]

Eh, I suppose the use of the word "before" is an issue, since it's more like they're reliant on each other. My apologies. If it wasn't true that something existed, it wouldn't exist, but if it didn't exist it wouldn't be true that it existed.

I think the only thing to demonstrate that truth presupposes existance is the counterfactual "if the universe did not exist, then it would not be true that the universe existed", and that would be true even without an existing universe.

You could say, "If I am right, then I am right". "If I am not right, then I am not right" works too. They assume opposite conditions, but they are both true. There's a problem. (Logical if-then statements do not assert that their conditionals are true. If they did then one of the statements would have to be invalid to resolve the explicit contradiction of p AND !p.)

If you meant that logical if-thens are true regardless of tangible truth, then yes, that's true... But why are they true? To borrow from Chiki, "If someone is a bachelor, then that person is not married" is true. But what if humans didn't exist? The concept of a bachelor wouldn't exist. That concept is something we made up. It is neither true nor false unless we say it is. We make up the definition of a universe, too. A universe is a universe because we say it's a universe. We draw the lines that form all truth, even logical truth.

In conclusion, all truth, including logical truth, only exists relative to the observer.

I didn't say it made the concept meaningful, and it wasn't a proof. I'm just trying to get at the reason for doubt in the first place. One has to reject the natural intuition that reality is real in order to even say it "might" not be real.

You've given a reason, which is fine. However, if you geninuely have always doubted reality, then, with all due respect, considering how that contrasts to the rest of humanity, that probably indicates some extra factors or problems. I won't ask you to neccessarily expand on them though. I also have some doubts that you thought reality was not real during your very early years, but I can't really prove that.

Specifically, I felt I was dreaming a lot of the time. I experienced what we call derealization. I wasn't paranoid or obsessed with waking up or anything, but I felt disconnected from it all and thought, "This is a weird dream." There were memories I had that none of the other people involved remembered, or blocked out. I came to convince myself I dreamt those things, despite the fact they were real (I was able to confirm it later in my life). I had several lucid dreams when I was younger (very rare now that I'm older), which didn't feel weird to me when it happened. I had trouble distinguishing between the two since I was about six.

(I say "real" here because they can meaningfully be treated as a part of everyone else's perceptions instead of what you'd call a dream. It's the one I can rely on to stay around. In my head it's kind of like I woke up into another dream, but this is the one I consider home: That's what real means to me. Real is just a better word to explain the difference than "most consistent stream of perception". This might be similar to the intuition others experience or it might not, I can't say. I can say it is learned as I grow used to the consistency, not something I always lived with.)

I have a problem with your approach to the subject. You explicitly stated that my having a different intuition was evidence of a problem. No take backs on that. You would never have used that word even as an alternative unless you thought it was a negative. You can't skirt around the fact that this asserts majority intuition is correct. Even if you do not think that the majority intuition is correct, you are consistently slipping into arguing for it in spite of yourself. If you do think so, please explain why. You seem to have accepted that there is no meaningful distinction between reality and perception. If they are identical, then on what grounds is not seeing a difference evidence of a negative factor?

Edited July 23, 2015 by Makaze

[Irysa]

You could say, "If I am right, then I am right". "If I am not right, then I am not right" works too. They assume opposite conditions, but they are both true. There's a problem. (Logical if-then statements do not assert that their conditionals are true. If they did then one of the statements would have to be invalid to resolve the explicit contradiction of p AND !p.)

If you meant that logical if-thens are true regardless of tangible truth, then yes, that's true... But why are they true? To borrow from Chiki, "If someone is a bachelor, then that person is not married" is true. But what if humans didn't exist? The concept of a bachelor wouldn't exist. That concept is something we made up. It is neither true nor false unless we say it is. We make up the definition of a universe, too. A universe is a universe because we say it's a universe. We draw the lines that form all truth, even logical truth.

In conclusion, all truth, including logical truth, only exists relative to the observer.

That's just linguistic tomfoolery. Ie; One is 1 and Zero is 0 and regardless of the word we use, the concept of existance or nonexistance isn't defined by humanity. It simply IS.

I have a problem with your approach to the subject. You explicitly stated that my having a different intuition was evidence of a problem. No take backs on that. You would never have used that word even as an alternative unless you thought it was a negative. You can't skirt around the fact that this asserts majority intuition is correct. Even if you do not think that the majority intuition is correct, you are consistently slipping into arguing for it in spite of yourself. If you do think so, please explain why. You seem to have accepted that there is no meaningful distinction between reality and perception. If they are identical, then on what grounds is not seeing a difference evidence of a negative factor?

I said "probably indicates some extra factors or problems."

Probably is not absoloute, and "problem" doesn't refer to the intuition itself, it refers to the situation that may have cultivated such an intuition. If something differs from what we expect, it's not unnatural to attempt to consider why that would be the case. I did not assert that there was definitively a reason linked to your upbringing or mental wellbeing that caused it, I simply postulated it. Not to compare you to a psychopath or anything, but we would equally attempt to consider what causes the difference.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Irysa

[Serpent of Sheol]

Identifying under Moral Nihilism I would say that morality can't be judged. Coming from this opinion would more or less come upon the logical errors in relativism and absolutism. Whilst there are many things wrong with each meta-ethical standpoint, I believe moral nihilism to be the most logical from two failures of the other two schools of thought; Moral Relativism exists on an incoherent notion of truth. When arguing relative morality, it advocates for different moral beliefs relative to the society; this begets the question: how did these moral beliefs come to be noted as "true" by the society? To be true in a given society, the belief is to be held by the majority. In the core of the thesis on relativism, a person's view on relativism relies on its coherence to the morality in a given society. This counters a normal way of thinking, as this implies that the majority can never be wrong. This being said, one thing moral relativism fails to justify is how a society's moral outlook is first gained. It could be a result of social contract, or also imposed by conquering nations or anything of the sort. This would imply a sense of moral absolutism shaping moral relativism, which seems odd that the establishment of faction can change the morality view of a society. Moral Absolutism, in its thesis, would state the existence of one true morality. How did this come to be? This would mean the objective morality comes from a universally unquestionable source, which is, as of now, an impossibility. (I will elaborate more if necessary, and to justify moral nihilism.)

[Makaze]

That's just linguistic tomfoolery. Ie; One is 1 and Zero is 0 and regardless of the word we use, the concept of existance or nonexistance isn't defined by humanity. It simply IS.

Can you back up that claim?

I said "probably indicates some extra factors or problems."

Probably is not absoloute, and "problem" doesn't refer to the intuition itself, it refers to the situation that may have cultivated such an intuition. If something differs from what we expect, it's not unnatural to attempt to consider why that would be the case. I did not assert that there was definitively a reason linked to your upbringing or mental wellbeing that caused it, I simply postulated it. Not to compare you to a psychopath or anything, but we would equally attempt to consider what causes the difference.

You completely sidestepped what I asked. Why is it a negative factor, if it exists? You have now directly implied that seeing a non-existent distinction between reality and perception is mentally healthy and not seeing it is unhealthy.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Makaze

[Irysa]

Can you back up that claim?

I could, but I think you already know where this is going, because you wouldn't accept it and it's not like you substantially can back up your claim that they aren't. Ultimately the entire line of discussion doesnt get anywhere past this point.

You completely sidestepped what I asked. Why is it a negative factor, if it exists? You have now directly implied that seeing a non-existent distinction between reality and perception is mentally healthy and not seeing it is unhealthy.

I didn't sidestep the question, I simply refused to answer because the question was loaded and nothing to do with what I actually said. Instead I attempted to explain the misunderstanding, as I will do again. I did not attempt to frame it as a neccessarily negative factor, only one that differentiates from the norm, The word "problem" was not reffering to your perception. And I even said "not to compare you to x". The entire point is "something differentiates from what we'd usually expect, so determine the reason for it". This is basic reasoning.

It is most definitely not a common occurance. There is reason to ponder why it would occur. I did not state that it was the case definitively, I was merely postulating.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Irysa

[Blaze The Great]

Can you back up that claim?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

If something has qualities, then it exists. Its existence precedes any other description about it, so to say that it does not exist but has a property is logically incompatible.

[Makaze]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

If something has qualities, then it exists. Its existence precedes any other description about it, so to say that it does not exist but has a property is logically incompatible.

The claim to be backed up is "it has properties that are not defined by observers".

I didn't sidestep the question, I simply refused to answer because the question was loaded and nothing to do with what I actually said. Instead I attempted to explain the misunderstanding, as I will do again. I did not attempt to frame it as a neccessarily negative factor, only one that differentiates from the norm, The word "problem" was not reffering to your perception. And I even said "not to compare you to x". The entire point is "something differentiates from what we'd usually expect, so determine the reason for it". This is basic reasoning.

It is most definitely not a common occurance. There is reason to ponder why it would occur. I did not state that it was the case definitively, I was merely postulating.

You did frame it that way. I offered the explanation that you were arguing for it in spite of yourself. That could be the case, but either way, what you are doing is creating the frame. Saying "not to compare you to x" was the tipping point. Backfired big time.

I'm confused about the "basic reasoning" defense. You expressed doubt about a claim I made about my own personal history ("I doubt you truly doubted reality at a young age"), undermined my state of mind ("it wouldn't happen without other factors or problems"), backtracked ("I did not assert that there was definitively a reason linked to your upbringing or mental wellbeing that caused it, I simply postulated it"), and when I gave you the full story, you arrived at... What conclusion? Why postulate that? Why shouldn't I believe your goal was to undermine me?

At this point I just want you to own what you've been doing. At least acknowledge you've been handling yourself in a bad way.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Makaze

[Irysa]

You did frame it that way. I offered the explanation that you were arguing for it in spite of yourself. That could be the case, but either way, what you are doing is creating the frame. Saying "not to compare you to x" was the tipping point. Backfired big time.

I'm confused about the "basic reasoning" defense. You expressed doubt about a claim I made about my own personal history ("I doubt you truly doubted reality at a young age"), undermined my state of mind ("it wouldn't happen without other factors or problems"), backtracked ("I did not assert that there was definitively a reason linked to your upbringing or mental wellbeing that caused it, I simply postulated it"), and when I gave you the full story, you arrived at... What conclusion? Why postulate that? Why shouldn't I believe your goal was to undermine me?

At this point I just want you to own what you've been doing. At least acknowledge you've been handling yourself in a bad way.

I'm not going to apologise for something I didn't do. I was simply being honest; I have difficulty believing it. This does not mean you are wrong, nor does it mean I absoloutely believe that your story is false or true, it means I have difficulty believing it. This is because it deviates drastically from a very general norm, and I would not put it past anyone here to be contrarian for the sake of an argument. Thus, I have doubt. There are three options, continue to be undecided (lazy), find reasons to believe it (taking someone at their word and/or finding explanations for that situation) or flat out disbelieving it entirely (the only reason to do this being outlined earlier). The fact I attempted to consolidate a view with an explanation for why you wouldn't be lying indicates that I lean towards wanting to believe it, because it answers my earlier question very resoundingly (no intuition that reality is real is a good reason to not accept that reality is real).

Edited July 24, 2015 by Irysa

[Blaze The Great]

The claim to be backed up is "it has properties that are not defined by observers".

Ok. Take scientific laws such as Einstein's mass-energy equivalence. People aren't able to observe energy or the speed of light, but they exist regardless.

[Phoenix Wright]

Ok. Take scientific laws such as Einstein's mass-energy equivalence. People aren't able to observe energy or the speed of light, but they exist regardless.

both of those things are observable.

edit: one can't "see" energy, but that's irrelevant. it's still a quantifiable, physical property of matter. and the speed of light can most definitely be observed. it's not only due to maxwell's famous equations that we know the speed of light.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Phoenix Wright