|
Juffo-Wup posted:Do you think that the fact that Sacramento is the capital of California is not reducible to any set of physical facts? That what makes it true is a non-physical state of affairs? That seems extremely strange. You keep moving the goal posts in this argument. Show me how a moral fact breaks down into a observable fact. I understand what you are arguing I just don't see why you insist on using these analogies.
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:You keep moving the goal posts in this argument. Show me how a moral fact breaks down into a observable fact. I understand what you are arguing I just don't see why you insist on using these analogies. If you know what I'm arguing then you can tell me my argument. E: If you do know what I'm arguing, shouldn't you know what I'm trying to demonstrate with my analogies? Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:If you know what I'm arguing then you can tell me my argument. Your analogies are equating the physical with the intangible it's like saying " Demonstrate hope".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Your analogies are equating the physical with the intangible it's like saying " Demonstrate hope". Oh, see, here's how I know you don't understand my argument; I have been strenuously denying that there is anything intangible here. And 'hope' is term that refers to a type of mental state. Which is a type of brain state. Which is obviously tangible.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Your 'expression of interest' on discovery what is morality is itself a normative claim. That what does exist ought to exist. You are making that choice, without justification, and by making that choice, you declare by fiat what ought to be. You have not discharged the normative language, you've hidden it. That's the substance of the boundary determination problem. Your response to that has been to simply restate your position, over and over again. "Well zogberts don't exist" And? Do you not acknowledge that you are making that choice that that is where the boundary should be?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
And yes, 'Capital', 'City' and 'California' cannot be reduced down to physical facts, without remainder, as some point you will have to declare an arbitrary boundary on what is a city, what is a 'capital' (what is a state for that matter) and where exactly 'California' is. By making that choice, you determine what is being referred to - own up to that choice. It's the same with morality.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:...a type of mental state. Which is a type of brain state. Which is obviously tangible. This is a hell of an assumption. Show me the neurons for hope or love or hate.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Zaradis posted:This is a hell of an assumption. Show me the neurons for hope or love or hate. So is the alternative assumption here that brain and mental states are unrelated?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:And yes, 'Capital', 'City' and 'California' cannot be reduced down to physical facts, without remainder, as some point you will have to declare an arbitrary boundary on what is a city, what is a 'capital' (what is a state for that matter) and where exactly 'California' is. By making that choice, you determine what is being referred to - own up to that choice. It's the same with morality. No, reference is not arbitrary. I've been clear on this. That this word refers to this thing is a fact fixed by causal history. This isn't some fanciful whim of mine, this is the result of work by Kripke and Putnam and Fodor to fix the problems of reference indicated by Frege and Russell. I'm not interested in arguing this point. Go read Naming and Necessity if you want arguments. Zaradis posted:This is a hell of an assumption. Show me the neurons for hope or love or hate. It is my position. But it is also the majority philosophical position. Anyway, you already declared me a liar and left, so what's your goal in coming back? If everyone here is convinced I'm either a liar or some kind of troll, I'm wasting my time. I've so far been asked to give: a proof of an external world, an account of normative facts, an account of moral facts, an empirical derivation of a particular moral fact, a theory of reference, a theory of mental states, and a proof of physicalism. I've given genuine attempts to answer every one of these questions, and none of my interlocutors had accepted any of them. Not even agreement, just 'yeah, I can see why you'd think that.' If I can't establish with anyone even any ground for what kind of evidence is admissible in any domain whatsoever, there's really no point in my continuing. I'm happy to give citations where relevant if someone is interested, but any more engagement than that seems futile. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
I'm not exactly onboard with moral realism (far less sympathetic to anti-realism, though), but it seems losing your goddamn minds over Juffo-Wup's advocating of a completely mainstream, majority philosophical position isn't very convincing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
I find it almost impossible to believe that this is a majority philosophical position, because it's totally ignoring post modernism. I'm not a post-modernist, but you have to be able to give an effective reply to that kind of attack, and it simply cannot. But it's over now, so that doesn't matter. Going back: Lichy posted:From the standpoint of political science you could argue that morality in a given society stems from that societies institutions and allows these instructions to operate and propagate efficiently. The institutions themselves arise by selective pressure in a given set of circumstances. So the question is, which would be the first cause, if there is one? rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:31 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Most people don't I mean that implies people in their day to day lives make multiple ethically debatable decisions and for a majority that's just not the case. People make ethically debatable decisions every time they do anything at all (including doing nothing). Perhaps you mean only that most people don't think about or question what they ought to do very often, but in that case, have you got statistics? I really don't think worrying about what one should do is at all unusual.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I wouldn't say that I'm depending entirely on what norms people agree on, or would be inclined to endorse, or what-have-you. That kind of conscious report is certainly evidence of the sort of thing I'm interested in, but it also certainly is not decisive. Consider: setting morality aside, humans make normatively valenced decisions all the time. Any decision a person makes which they regard as being directed toward the improvement of their life is such a decision. Given their beliefs about the world at the time of that action, that action indicates something that they valued, which may or may not be something they would consciously report valuing. This kind of goal-directed behavior, which includes verbal and linguistic behavior, is taking place constantly all over the world. I'd agree that you could probably find some such set of values for any given population and that that set of values probably counts as objective as far as that population is concerned. But those values are only how the given complex population system expresses the fundamental laws of nature given their current situation. Given perfect knowledge of a sample system (universe), one could hypothetically arrive at an equation for the phenomena that causes some sample population to experience the thing that they tend to call value, from first principles based on nothing but the fundamental laws of that system and enough time/computing power to crunch the numbers. But if that counts as objective value, and I can see that arguably it does, at least so far as it is an expression describing value that was arrived at with objective means. Then it can obviously be reduced down further to eliminate contingencies based on the sample population and their situation, and you will eventually arrive back at the sample system (universe) and it's fundamental laws. So I basically agree with you if you define objective value as "the goal that a given sample population of a given system works towards with the knowledge they have to guide them", but that expression of objective value is contingent at least on the system, the sample population and the knowledge of their situation being fed into the expression as inputs, before it's going to give any answer at all, and all that it gives as an answer is a list of things that the sample population values. That list will change according to what sample population and knowledge is being fed into that expression. If one feeds it the inputs of "the universe", "humanity" and "perfect knowledge of the situation of humanity" it will return what you've been arguing for. If one feeds it the inputs of "the universe", "the cells of a single human individual" and "that individual's limited knowledge about their own situation" then that same expression of objective value is going to return a list of that single individual's subjective values. So one might as well just declare the universe and it's laws of nature as the only objective value because they are the only things in the "equation of objective value" that aren't contingent on being given a specific sample population. And even that is assuming that "the universe" stays constant. edit: And given that determining what that "equation of objective value" is requires one to have perfect knowledge of the sample universe and it's laws of nature and a practically infinite amount of time and/or computing power at their disposal, it's going to require a scientist with powers equivalent to those of God's to actually determine, so I'd guess that is how God would determine the objective values of the universe, if it didn't already bake them in in the design phase of the creation of the universe. 
Oo Koo fucked around with this message at 11:59 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
I think your concern here is something like: if value facts are just physical facts, then there can be no independent science of normativity, since it's all just the laws of fundamental physics with a layer of abstraction on top. I think this is incorrect: particular instantiations of (a.k.a 'token') normative facts are identical to sets of token physical facts, but types of normative states of affairs are not reducible to types of physical states of affairs, because of multiple realizability. For detailed arguments to this effect, see Fodor's Special Sciences, which is also just a really good paper.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:I think your concern here is something like: if value facts are just physical facts, then there can be no independent science of normativity, since it's all just the laws of fundamental physics with a layer of abstraction on top. I think this is incorrect: particular instantiations of (a.k.a 'token') normative facts are identical to sets of token physical facts, but types of normative states of affairs are not reducible to types of physical states of affairs, because of multiple realizability. For detailed arguments to this effect, see Fodor's Special Sciences, which is also just a really good paper. I skimmed through the paper and another refutation paper that appeared on the same google search, and I'm not buying that multiple realization is a problem for reduction. We're ultimately talking about processes happening in complex systems and different processes can appear similar even they're completely different. A given computer program can be programmed in an infinite number of ways and the flow of water and the flow of electricity can appear similar if looked at from the right perspective. Every boiling pot of water has a different state of matter and energy. Physics is full of generalizations about physical processes that can be realized in an infinte number of ways. One absolutely might derive an abstract science of ethics that works and is practical from neuroscience, and it will probably be actually possible to achieve unlike trying to derive it from fundamental physics and first principles but like all scientific fields it will only apply and hold truth value when used in the correct context. One doesn't use classical mechanics to study the brain, one doesn't use thermodynamics to build a house, one doesn't use quantum mechanics to design a refrigerator and one doesn't use neuroscience to interpret the results of the large hadron collider. And so on. Edit: Actually one might use thermodynamics when dealing with the insulation and heating systems of the house, but I hope everyone gets what I meant. Oo Koo fucked around with this message at 16:49 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Yes and how did you make those actual decisions? Like what was the thought process behind it? Did you sit down and write a pros and cons, did you discuss in depth the nature of good and evil? Or was there a intrinsic decision making process. Was it a complex process?How are you defining ethical dilemma? Because I have to weigh the probability of success with their right to autonomy. Which varies on a case by case basis. Generally the conclusion I come to is that I lack sufficient information to make a proper decision and I should continue to pay attention and offer what help I can which does not violate their autonomy to as great a degree. It is an ethical dilemma because my decision may significantly impact their wellbeing, if I don't do a good job they'll end up worse off, if I do a good job they might end up better, if I do nothing then they may either resolve it by themselves or get worse. There's a lot of information to consider, much of which I don't have access to.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Fair enough. I'm a non-reductive physicalist in the Fodorian style, so if that's the location of our disagreement, that's fine.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because I have to weigh the probability of success with their right to autonomy. Which varies on a case by case basis. Generally the conclusion I come to is that I lack sufficient information to make a proper decision and I should continue to pay attention and offer what help I can which does not violate their autonomy to as great a degree. Okay but where does your ethical responsibility to that person come from? Why is it important to you for your friend to benefit and not say the person you see on the street that his homeless? Like why do you place a value on that decision above other decisions? Oh dear clone posted:People make ethically debatable decisions every time they do anything at all (including doing nothing). Perhaps you mean only that most people don't think about or question what they ought to do very often, but in that case, have you got statistics? I really don't think worrying about what one should do is at all unusual. That's a tough study to find but we can look at studies on ethical decisions / dilemma based on specific instances. The problem you have with a ethical dilemma is that its definition varies depending on who you ask. This is a interesting survey on Climate Change. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/motivates-consumers-environmental-ethical-decisions Also, yes I don't believe people debate themselves in regard to decisions they make.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Okay but where does your ethical responsibility to that person come from? Why is it important to you for your friend to benefit and not say the person you see on the street that his homeless? Like why do you place a value on that decision above other decisions? I don't? That's just the most recent one I came up with. I would say that I am personally endebted to most of the people I am familiar with so they do get preferential treatment but I can afford just about anybody the benefit of a proper ethical decision.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/motivates-consumers-environmental-ethical-decisions Why? Because as far as I can see that article suggests just the opposite. It shows a very large majority interested in the morality of their purchases, with disagreement over the answers.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I find it almost impossible to believe that this is a majority philosophical position, because it's totally ignoring post modernism. I'm not a post-modernist, but you have to be able to give an effective reply to that kind of attack, and it simply cannot. Well then it might be a good point in the conversation to mention that analytic philosophy is largely fraudulent bullshit that can only persist through a process of self-imposed exile from any conversation about its subjects that has taken place more recently than about fifty years or so. It was actually precisely this debate that led to me dumping my philosophy major at University in favor of something more serious. Moral realism absolutely is the majority opinion, along with a number of other equally ludicrous notions that fit more neatly into logical syllogisms than their more continental counterparts. And the argument for it is exactly as transparently stupid as it would appear to anyone with a 9th graders awareness of current events. Its just blatantly a case of arguing backwards from a preferred conclusion and formalizing existing folk theories (which are largely ideologically driven) because thats the only goal analytic philosophy ever set for itself. One of the things you either learn or don't learn about philosophy is that the smartest and most important thinkers in the game are the ones whose work largely revolves around shattering any future possibilities for the discipline and everyone else is just tenured and spinning their wheels.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I find it almost impossible to believe that this is a majority philosophical position, because it's totally ignoring post modernism. I'm not a post-modernist, but you have to be able to give an effective reply to that kind of attack, and it simply cannot. What do you mean by postmodernism in this context?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
The line of attack I used, that in searching for a truth 'out there' you'll only find what you want to find, is a fairly standard post-modernist tack against enlightenment values, or against anything with a meta-narrative.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The line of attack I used, that in searching for a truth 'out there' you'll only find what you want to find, is a fairly standard post-modernist tack against enlightenment values, or against anything with a meta-narrative. Obscurantism is good and cool.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
I take it to you're not a fan, but as a criticism it has legs. If you can't reply effectively, you're dead in the water. I don't think any moral realism is capable of doing so, whatever the motivation behind that realism might be. So you forced to take moral relativism as your starting point, but what exactly that means depends on what you wanted out of the project of searching for morality in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
rudatron posted:I take it to you're not a fan, but as a criticism it has legs. If you can't reply effectively, you're dead in the water. I don't think any moral realism is capable of doing so, whatever the motivation behind that realism might be. So you forced to take moral relativism as your starting point, but what exactly that means depends on what you wanted out of the project of searching for morality in the first place. Do your say this on the basis of having carefully considered a range of such arguments, or... ?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:57
|
|