Ethics as a method, not an artifact.
Hello my fellow tellurians,
I hope this discussion finds you well. I'd like to draw some attention to a topic that I think a great many thinkers have misconceptions about. It happens rather often that thinkers find themselves debating, both publicly and privately, about the nature of ethics. Often one hears arguments regarding the objectivity of ethics, the subjectivity of ethics, the nonexistence of ethics, the divine source of ethics and so on. I'm sure you're all familiar with the phenomenon. However, I'd like for you all to consider the idea that our perceptual framework regarding the subject is at best, disoriented, and at worst, misaligned entirely. By that, I mean to posit that it is quite conceivable that questions of the objectivity, subjectivity, absence of, or divine dissemination of ethics is the improper mode viewing the subject.
To illustrate: One would not argue the objectivity of math, or the nonexistence of math, would they? Would they argue the subjectivity of science, or its divine dissemination? We know that math can be used by experts to achieve desired outcomes in the objective world, but numbers do not exist in reality. Nor, is it likely that any two persons would utilize math for the same subjective interests, or goals. For arguments sake, I would assert that the same is true for the application of science across these standards. And if I am correct in the above listed assertions, the question at hand becomes: Then why are we asking these questions with regard to ethics.
The internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy characterizes ethics thus: "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." Notice the procession of actions here: "systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." To systematize something is to arrange according to an organized system. Just as we do with math, just as we do with science. Math is, after all, nothing more than a sytematized approach to understanding numbers, formulas and related structures, shapes and spaces in which they are contained, and quantities and their changes. And science, after all, is nothing more than the systematized approach to inductively observing the natural phenomena of the universe, in the hopes of discovering truth and making predictions about the future. So, why is ethics treated any differently?
I posit this to you my friends, in the hopes of a peaceful discussion on the subject, that the questions most commonly associated with the topic of ethics, i.e. objectivity, subjectivity, etc., are distractions that keep us from understanding the truth. That being, that ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, and that such an approach is open to a plethora of legitimizing standards such as consistency, universality, objectivity, subjectivity, utility, coherence, reciprocity, justice, deontology, pleasure, self-maximization, interpersonal harmony, stoic resilience, independence, liberty, and religiosity. Of course, I'm sure there are more standards I may have missed, but that's where you come in, dear friends!
Thanks for stopping by. I hope you like the topic at hand and enjoy diving into it with me.
Cheers!
-G
I hope this discussion finds you well. I'd like to draw some attention to a topic that I think a great many thinkers have misconceptions about. It happens rather often that thinkers find themselves debating, both publicly and privately, about the nature of ethics. Often one hears arguments regarding the objectivity of ethics, the subjectivity of ethics, the nonexistence of ethics, the divine source of ethics and so on. I'm sure you're all familiar with the phenomenon. However, I'd like for you all to consider the idea that our perceptual framework regarding the subject is at best, disoriented, and at worst, misaligned entirely. By that, I mean to posit that it is quite conceivable that questions of the objectivity, subjectivity, absence of, or divine dissemination of ethics is the improper mode viewing the subject.
To illustrate: One would not argue the objectivity of math, or the nonexistence of math, would they? Would they argue the subjectivity of science, or its divine dissemination? We know that math can be used by experts to achieve desired outcomes in the objective world, but numbers do not exist in reality. Nor, is it likely that any two persons would utilize math for the same subjective interests, or goals. For arguments sake, I would assert that the same is true for the application of science across these standards. And if I am correct in the above listed assertions, the question at hand becomes: Then why are we asking these questions with regard to ethics.
The internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy characterizes ethics thus: "The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." Notice the procession of actions here: "systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior." To systematize something is to arrange according to an organized system. Just as we do with math, just as we do with science. Math is, after all, nothing more than a sytematized approach to understanding numbers, formulas and related structures, shapes and spaces in which they are contained, and quantities and their changes. And science, after all, is nothing more than the systematized approach to inductively observing the natural phenomena of the universe, in the hopes of discovering truth and making predictions about the future. So, why is ethics treated any differently?
I posit this to you my friends, in the hopes of a peaceful discussion on the subject, that the questions most commonly associated with the topic of ethics, i.e. objectivity, subjectivity, etc., are distractions that keep us from understanding the truth. That being, that ethics is a systematized approach to formulating well argued reasons for concluding that certain behaviors are wrong, or right, and that such an approach is open to a plethora of legitimizing standards such as consistency, universality, objectivity, subjectivity, utility, coherence, reciprocity, justice, deontology, pleasure, self-maximization, interpersonal harmony, stoic resilience, independence, liberty, and religiosity. Of course, I'm sure there are more standards I may have missed, but that's where you come in, dear friends!
Thanks for stopping by. I hope you like the topic at hand and enjoy diving into it with me.
Cheers!
-G
Comments (78)
People do argue the objectivity of math. There are people who believe the ground of being, fundamental reality, is math.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Quoting Garrett Travers
These statements seem contradictory to me.
They do argue vociferously about whether math is invented or discovered - that latter belonging to those (like Roger Penrose) who consider math to originate in a Platonic realm. And there are those who would argue that the mere intelligibility of the world and science presupposes some kind of foundational guarantee of that intelligibility. If all of life is just matter behaving through the blind evolutionary process, why would we presume that humans can apprehend truth or reality at all? (Donald Hoffman and others)
And phenomenology would probably argue that math and science belong to communities of shared understanding (intersubjectivity) and that human knowledge and truths are created.
I'm not a philosopher and I'm not sure if I can subscribe to any particular views like these but the world of philosophy is immense and ethics can be slippery. Some people are desperate to found their beliefs on a transcendent rock. Is this how you view Objectivism?
Quoting T Clark
I'm sure some people may debate it, but it's self-evident that numbers don't exist in reality, even if things are arranged in a mathematically consistent manner in the universe.
Quoting T Clark
Thanks for letting me know. To clarify: The former, more popular, questions listed are not the proper mode of viewing, or line of questioning. It skips over what ethics is, which is a methdology developed by which we derive from certain values what can reasonably be regarded as either ethical, or unethical behavior. The latter list, is an inventory of standards that can be incorporated into one's ethical framework, by which each behavior concluded to be either moral, or immoral can be legitimized. Meaning, the former questions are all irrelevant, they don't apply. They don't apply anymore than asking if math, or science, or jazz theory are any of those things. What matters is can I use Jazz Theory to make coherent music? Can I utilize scientific methodology to get someone to the moon? Can I use ethics to live a life that leads to greater happiness, harmony, peace, and prosperity. Just as a quick elaboration. I'll go as deep as you need me to if that doesn't clarify.
Invented or discovered isn't what the issue was. It was whether or not math is objective, which it isn't. It's a subjective system formulated by humans through observation. Math doesn't exist in the world without a human mind to systematize numbers and so on..
Quoting Tom Storm
Enacting scientific observation and experiment is objective, that's actual human activity. Science is a concept, meaning it doesn't exist in the world without human implementation.
Quoting Tom Storm
A great question. Here's a suprising answer for you: No. This is not how I see Objectivism. It's how I see all ethical epistemologies that can be used by individuals to standardize their ethical behavior in the world. However, not all are always applicable. Need any clarity on that?
The encyclopedia says that the field of ethics involves systematizing. It doesn't say that ethics is nothing more than systematizing.
It's an interesting way to look at ethics, but my intuition and experience tells me that there are reason why people are arguing about ethics. It's easy to reframe the definition and claim that there is no point in arguing, but that wouldn't stop the argument. It would only stop you from participating. As someone studying philosophy, you should get comfortable with engaging in argument for the sake of it, and not to win it or stop it from happening :smile:
Quoting pfirefry
I know that, that's why I said notice the procession of action: systematizing, defending, and recommending. Those actions describe ethics as a branch of philosophy.
Quoting pfirefry
I don't have any issue with people debating and arguing ethics, I'm saying that the manner in which they often choose to is skewed. They're asking the wrong questions. Those kinds of questions don't apply to human-formulated systems used to make sense of the world, like ethics, science, or jazz theory. Those primary questions I highlighted are just as irrelevant to science, math, and jazz theory, as they are to ethics, as each are human engineered conceptual systems. Not objects, subjects, things that can or cannot exist, or be divinely disseminated.
I'll continue to look on and pop in the odd question. Your ideas are interesting to me because they are probably the opposite of mine. I am always most interested in ideas that don't match my worldview. But I am sure you are used to that scenario.
No disrespect intended but are you here to proselytize for Objectivism?
Quoting Tom Storm
Sounds great, come on back.
Quoting Tom Storm
No. I'm here to discuss all of philosophy, Objectivism included. But, to clarify my last statement, because it's looking like I wasn't clear enough, I regard all epistemologies as methods by which to standardize ethical behavior. Meaning, depending on what kind of ethical dilemma one finds themselves in, each epistemology, or atleast most, have a place in one's considerations for action. In other words, I draw from every epistemology to draw my conclusions. Just understand, when I hear, or see legitimate frameworks being insulted, dismissed, or ridiculed without qualification, I will defend them, be that Objectivism, Utilitarianism, Correspondence Theory, or what have you.
Interesting. Have you studied philosophy?
It's my major.
While we await the birth of one, let's get down to the brass tacks shall we? What's the purpose of ethics? I consider this the tool view - like a knife, ethics was invented to do something. If so, like how we've perfected the design of knives based on what their function is, we can/should do the same with ethics.
What's ethics for?
To bring about and maintain social harmony?
Looks like it. All that remains now is to work out what kind of rules (moral injunctions) are needed for this.
To ask of ethics "what is it?" is to ask "what is it for?"
Nice. I don't have much knowledge of philosophy but I do have passions. Be gentle.
My friend, I'm here to teach and be taught, not to rough house people. You're safe here. Not to mention, the guys that run this platform don't really like bullshit, so everything should be good.
Quoting Agent Smith
I'll do you one better, Smith, although generally I agree with. I'd posit that there's no lack of genius, but a lack of interest. There seems to be something that's caught hold of modern Man. Some strange nihilism. Whether induced by parental abuse, loss of religion, inept education, over-gratification through chemicals and tech is not clear; I'd say it's a little bit of all of that. But, I'd like to emphasize something I didn't add to the list, that being that for the vast, vast majority of people, it is almost an assurance that philosophy has never been taught to them. The public schools don't teach the stuff, by and large. Yet, philosophy is quite literally the back-bone and basis for every field of study ever concieved. Meaning, it has been left out of primary school curricula intentionally. And if you complete highschool having never had an introduction to logic and ethics, the kind of intorduction that we all get to math and English, then there's a good chance that critical thinking, ethics, and critically thinking about ethics are probably something you're never going to find yourself doing; damn sure not if mixed in with all of the other factors I enumerated.
Quoting Agent Smith
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that seeks to generate systematic approaches to analyzing behavior and its outcomes, in the hopes of creating methodologies of behavior that can be relied upon to produce the optimal amount of peace, prosperity, happiness, pleasure, justice, harmony, productivity, health, and overall well being for all participants. That is fundamentally what ethics is.
Quoting Agent Smith
This is dead on. Ethics is a tool for optimal behavior. Just as science is a tool for optimal obervation of reality. Just as math is a tool for optimal analysis of patterns, values, and change. Just as Jazz is a tool for optimal musical performance. All of these are conceptual tools by which we appraoch domains of interest for optimal results in each respective domain.
As @Tom Storm explained, serious physicists take the idealist view that reality may consist of mathematics. It clearly isn't "self-evident" that they're wrong.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Quoting Garrett Travers
If the Christian God exists, and if he tells me what behaviors are right and wrong, seems to me that the methodology is objectively true. For me, the basis of our judgements of right and wrong, the methodology if you will, come from the fact that we are social animals and we are emotionally and empathically connected to our fellow humans. That could be reasonably interpreted as a subjective methodology.
It's not the behavior that's objective, subjective, useful, universal, it's the way we decide what is ethical that is.
Yep,and I explained that, although scientists and thinkers may debate about whether things are arranged in a mathematical fashion, no scientist claims that the universe is comprised of numbers, or that the conceptual framework known as mathematics is an objective element of universal composition. Numbers are human fabrications used to make sense of reality, not objectively extant figures, or values. This is not contested.
Quoting T Clark
If that were the case, then you'd be onto something. However, there is no evidence suggesting the existence of God, let alone that he told you what was good and how to enact it, let alone that he told you the truth. In other words, when we can establish that such an entity exists, then we'll cross that bridge.
Quoting T Clark
That's absolutely a fine position to hold. In fact, I mentioned it as a standard metric. The problem that I think you have with that, is that it cannot be your only metric. There are behaviors that you could potentially engage in privately that could damage your health, self-esteem, psychological well-being, or ruin your opportunity to achieve a deeply desired goal. Meaning, it clearly isn't only a matter of interpersonal harmony. That's where my multiferious standards come in, there are many standards for you to apply to a given situation to determine the most ethically sound course of action.
Quoting T Clark
Sorry, you've got this statement all jumbled. Actions are objective because they have objective, independently observable consequences. Deciding what is ethical is an individual deliberation that occurs only in your mind, which would be subjective. Much like conducting an experiment is an objective embodiment of the subjectively formulated scientific methods. However, I may be critiquing an argument that you didn't mean to put forward. In which case you should inform me.
The thing about tools is that they have a habit of re-defining the task that they were supposedly designed for.
Take science, for instance. It is designed for observation of reality, but we often don’t appreciate that it already pre-selects what counts as real, and over time, it changes its critieria concerning what counts as real, factual evidence. So it turns out the assumed passive tool of observation is also the active creator.
Ethics as a tool operates the same way.
Others here have already mentioned that there are philosophies and psychologies of mathematics which treat them not as pure products of the mind but results of embodied interactions with the world, much like perceptual objects. Thus they are neither purely subjective features of mind not objective features of the world but the result of an indissociable interaction between the two.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, Thomas Kuhn would call this phenomenon a paradigm change. Which is where we get that phrase, by the way. However, although I appreciate that topic as a genuine point of interest, it doesn't actually have much relevance here. To explain, it doesn't actually matter if tools evolve, or develop better and better variations of themselves. What matters is: Is this still the tool being used to solve for the problem at hand. In other words, yes paradigms shift - you might think of Newtonian physics as opposed to Einsteinian physics, or Aristotelian ethics as opposed to Kantian ethics - it doesn't change the fact that it is still that particular practice that serves as the tool to provide clarity on the most optimal version of each respective domain.
Quoting Joshs
I think I can completely accept this assertion. Nothing here is incompatible with anything I've elaborated on.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Quoting Garrett Travers
You say it's not appropriate to judge whether the methodologies of ethics are objective or subjective, yet here you are stating that they aren't objective because there is not God.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Now I'm confused. You previously wrote that ethics is the process by which we develop an understanding of what is right and wrong, but here you say that ethical decisions are subjective.
If I intentionally kill an innocent person with no justification, is that wrong? If it is, is it wrong objectively or subjectively. Are the standards by which we decide whether it is wrong or not objective or subjective.
I'm going to start here by saying: find me one and show me his arguments. And secondly, no I'm not drawing a distinction, I am describing to you the exact relation between numbers and mathematics. Numbers are symbols humans created to represnt values, and mathematics is a system that humans created to map those values onto reality. Which is exactly what would create the illusion that reality was comprised of math. It isn't. It's comprised of matter, energy, space, time, and quanta. Those things simply arrange themselves in ways that humans can use math to map numbers onto reliably.
Quoting T Clark
I did not say it was inappropriate, I say that such questions were not the right ones. Meaning, the questions being directed at ethics would reveal nothing about them because such questions do not pertain to abstract conceptual models of measurments. Whenever you are able to grasp my above response, this response will make 100% greater sense to you, I promise.
Quoting T Clark
No, I have said the entire time that ethics is an abstract conceptual framework created by humans to rationally assess questions of right and wrong.Quoting T Clark
Now, you're cutting to the meat of the whole thing. The ethics of murder is not written into the code of reality. To determine if this course of action is wrong, you will need a conceptual framework within which to operate. You can assess this from among, but not limited to, the following: Aristotelian Ethics, Stoic Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, Natural Law, Social Contract Theory, Virtue Ethics, or Objectivist Ethics. In which case you would take the act in question - in this case murder - and plug it into one, or more, or all of these frameworks and decide which one seems most reasonable, or attempt to combine all of the different framework's views that apply to the act in question and see how often the frameworks show compatability with one another on the subject, in the hopes of building as grand a case against murder as you can possibly muster. Does that make sense?
Quoting Garrett Travers
“[]I believe consciousness to be closely associated with the sensing of necessary truths — and thereby achieving a direct contact with Plato’s world of mathematical concepts.”(Roger Penrose)
"the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it".( Eugene Wigner, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences)
These Platonic views of mathematics suggest the belief that universe itself is mathematical rather than it being the case that our brains are wired to see it that way.
Here's a link to an article.
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
I haven't read it and I'm not really interested in the subject. The arguments don't really matter. I was just responding to your statement that it is self-evident that mathematics is not objective.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I agree with you, but many people, scientists and mathematicians, don't.
Quoting Garrett Travers
This is where I get lost. You say that asking whether ethics is objective or subjective is not the right question, then here you say it is not objective. There are people, a lot of people, who believe that right and wrong is written into the code of reality. I think you've begged the question - It seems you're saying talking about whether ethics is objective or subjective is wrongheaded because it is obviously subjective.
That's not a claim that the universe is made of mathematics. In fact it's barely a claim that could be described as coherent. Again, as Penrose said, Plato's mathematical concepts, not objective. He's claiming that consciousness has the power to detect reality, not that reality is made of math. It's time to put this to bed.
Quoting Joshs
Except math was created to make sense of values observed in the universe. Values arranged as the result of the laws of nature. It would be far more spooky if numbers weren't as useful as they are. Again, not a claim that math exists in reality, reality exists, math was created by humans.
Quoting Joshs
No, it suggests that the universe is arrayed in patterns that humans can use math to map values on to and make sense of, not that it is itself mathematical. The laws of nature create all of the parameters necessary for matter and energy to operate in ways that can be traced and patternized.
"Yeah, the argument is contained in his book and it isn't accepted as much in the way of anything special. In fact, he makes literally the same arguments I've made on this subject here this thread, but simply jumps to the conclusion that the universe is made of math. But, hey, at least I got one guy on the roster.
Quoting T Clark
The vast majority do not claim that the universe is made of math. In fact, the specifically say that the universe is composed of matter, energy, space, time, and quanta, all arrayed in patterns made possible by the laws of nature.
Quoting T Clark
That's because the question isn't relevant. It does nothing more than derail any constructive conversation on the topic. Questions of existence, objectivity, or subjectivity do not apply to conceptual frameworks. It doesn't make any sense to bother oneself with that line of inquiry. Observing that conceptual systems are formulated in the brain is not me claiming something is subjective and it wouldn't matter to the practice if I were. Ethics, the tool we use to determine the morality of a given action, takes place exclusively within our heads. The relevant question is by what standards do we conclude an act is either moral, or immoral.
Quoting T Clark
Right, my contention is: who cares if it is? What matters more is, have you developed a method by which to reliably conclude the rightness, or wrongness of a given action. It wouldn't matter if it were written in our code, generated by a human mind, or disemminated by god.
Quoting T Clark
No, it's wrong because it makes no difference to the frameworks that have been developed. It's non sequitur entirely.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Do you really want to take this any further? It is not directly related to your primary point, which is about ethics, not math.
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yes, I have, but it is not like you describe here:
Quoting Garrett Travers
It's the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It's Kant's categorical imperative - Treat people as people, not as means to an end. It's putting myself in the other person's position and trying to understand how they feel, trying not to hurt them.
I wasn't actually asking you, I was describing a question that, unlike questions of objectivity and the like, is relevant. But, I am glad you are doing so.
Quoting T Clark
Right, so these aren't methods, these are principles. Moral actions that represent a code. Ethics is the practice of rationally formulating that code, based upon standards that are either logically consistent, universally applicable, objectively observed, subjectively favored, or correspond to reality, reciprocity, strengthen resolve, or character, or independence, so on and so forth. Are you seeing what I am saying? What you described was an act assumed to be moral. What ethics is, is the process by which we conclude an act is moral, or immoral. Ethics would be you explaining to me why the golden rule was moral.
But I didn't rationally formulate it. It comes from my heart. What I know is right. I don't feel any need to rationally justify it. I like people and I don't want to hurt them.
Quoting T Clark
This IS your rational justification. That is your ethical deliberation. The Golden Rule is its representation in behavior. The first is the subjective conceptual formulation, predicated upon rational assessment -"I like people and I don't want to hurt them.-" And the second is the objective embodiment of that conceptual framework - the deliberate adherence to, in the form of behavior, the Golden Rule. Do you see now why it is irrelevant to ask those questions? It doesn't matter if it is objective, you will objectively embody it. It doesn't matter if it is subjective, you will rationally conceptualize it. It doesn't matter if it doesn't exist, you'll do the pevious two actions regardless. It doesn't matter if God disemminated it, you do it because it feels right to you nonetheless. It's totally irrelevant. The only thing that mattered is how you got to your conclusion and whether or not that method has enough support on its own. So, for example, the Golden Rule is also one of my principles. Not because I like people, or God, or anything regarding feelings. But, because a world where people respect individual sovereignty is the world that provides for greater utility, free exchange of ideas and goods, allows me to self-actualize, develop independence, and find a partner that will choose me for my values, and not because I can emotioanlly manipulate her. It's a better world for everyone, irrespective of how much I like them. Are you seeing what I've been getting at all this time?
You seem to be defining "rational" differently than I do. Reason is not involved. There aren't any words. I put it into words now so we can discuss it. There even aren't any reasons for it. No objectives. Just feelings. I know right from wrong.
Is any of this important to your argument:
Quoting Garrett Travers
I agree that the standards we use to determine whether an act is right or wrong is a good subject for discussion. That doesn't mean that discussion of where those standards come from is misguided.
I think maybe we've taken this discussion as far as we're going to get. From now on, I think we'll just start repeating ourselves. Good discussion.
Reason: a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
Rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
You were able to put it into words because of the above two listed processes. You knew that you liked people and didn't want to hurt them.sQuoting T Clark
It's the fundamental topic of this thread.
Quoting T Clark
This is specifically the topic at hand. The topic at hand is that ethics is an abstract conceptual method by which we formulate frameworks for standardizing the ethicality of behavior. I didn't say asking questions about where they come from is misguided, I said that asking the questions that are constantly asked about ethics regarding objectivity, subjectivity, existence, or divine dissemniation were irrelevant, as they have no bearing on the ethical process. Nothing would happen to how we reason ethics if we could answer any of those questions. Ethics would still look just like it does now.
Quoting T Clark
I suppose that is fair. Take care now.
-G
Thanks GT and TC, that was interesting to read.
Of course. I plan to do a bunch of these topic discussions, now that I've discovered this platform.
-G
[joke]Now the question is whether or not my argument was a pragmatic one.[/joke]
Children, some adults tell me, ask tough & interesting (philosophically) questions. They have this quiz phase in their lives during which parents & elder siblings are bombarded with questions of all and sundry kinds. Perhaps philosophers (re their obsession with questions and answering them) "suffer", in that sense and to that extent, from Peter Pan syndrome (a child trapped in a man's body).
The rest of your post, on target!
A point of clarification: Social harmony (sometimes) comes at the cost of individual happiness (utilitarianism in the dock).
Then there's the Sawyer family problem (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) - a group of sadists might find torturing/killing/cannibalizing other people improves/enhances peace amongst themselves (camaraderie developed/consolidated as among soldiers/rebels in war).
Quoting Agent Smith
Yes, it's unlikely to be something for which there is evidence, if it were intentional. But, you must understand. The history of science and all academic studies is fundamentally the history of philosophy's progression into those fields. There is no science or academia without it. To conclude that schools would have accidentally let this slip thier minds, would be to imply that the state schools accidentally left out the foundation of all education. It is radically unlikley. But, again, no evidence.
Quoting Agent Smith
Yeah, it's a part of early developmental conceptualization. Kids have a natural inclination to ask a deluge of questions so that they can learn and know what everyone is up to and be a part of it. I think a good portion of kids have this phase snuffed out of them by thier parents and peers.
Quoting Agent Smith
Yes, of course. The purpose of ethics is to provide frameworks within which individuals can navigate those dilemmas and make the right decision. It's not actually going to be all that often that you find yourself justifiably needing to sacrifice some of your well-being for the sake of others. A good deal of the time people do it for the sake of simply making themselves feel better. Which, believe it or not, would rarely ever happen if people familiarized themselves with the ethical theories. In any given dilemma, every ethical epistemology can be deferred to for guidance, but there most certainly be times when you don't come first in the situation.
Quoting Agent Smith
Right, or Jonestown. Or, even better, Washington.
In that case (if you agree with what I said) ethics can't be about its function in our lives i.e. it isn't a tool per se, like a knife whose design can be worked on over time to improve performance.
Perhaps we're being held back by old ideas (in re ethics) that though invented for a social purpose, now appear not to be so - forgotten knowledge/wisdom?
What of the argument that ethics presupposes morality? Don’t the legitimizing standards properly belong to moral philosophy? And if that is the case, might ethics indeed be an artifact of moral theory?
Per se, sure. The idea of science, jazz, or ethics being a tool is an analogy. The idea is that each of these man-made concepts are tools, methods, or means by which we address certain domains of interest in the hopes of producing optimal results in each respectively. Of course, science isn't a hammer, but it still gets a job done. Same as ethics.
Quoting Agent Smith
But, the thing is, ethics wasn't invented for a social purpose. Socrates began the tradition as a means for learning how to live the good life, both publicly and privately. This idea that it's strictly social is totally foreign to the tradition.
Okay, so Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with determining a what is moral. When done so, those actions that are concluded to be moral are the moral code of that ethical framework. So, first thought as to what is moral (Ethics), produces behaviors appriate to conduct (morailty). So, yes, Ethics presupposes morailty.
Quoting Mww
No, that's not the proper way of looking at it. That question is like asking whether physics is an artifact of gravitational theory. Or, music is an artifact of classical thoery. It doesn't really make sense. Ethics establishes moral codes and frameworks by which people live.
Cool. But then, if ethics presupposes morality, then ethics is necessarily conditioned by it, which may not be sufficient to consider ethics an artifact, per se, but ethics generally remains in principle a consequence of morality, I would think.
Not a big deal. As long as morality comes first; all else is social anthropology or empirical psychology, neither of which interests me personally.
I think you have this a little confused. Morality is conditioned by Ethics. Ethics is what produces moral codes, or morality. Ethics is a method by which to produce moral codes, meaning it is not an artifact; which implies it isn't subject to questions of objectivity, subjectivity, so on. They don't apply to conceptual frameworks. You've got the right idea, but you're placing the two in the wrong sequence. Morality isn't spontaneously produced, but rationally excogitated, like science or jazz theory.
Quoting Mww
Got to say, no disrespect, I don't know what this means.
OK. Thanks.
Well, I was kind of hoping you'd elaborate on this last point about anthro and psych.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I don’t think it’s sleepy.
Is the math in the detector or in the reality being detected? If the world is is such that our mathematical concepts fit it so well, then we could say that math is platonic in that we are equipped in Kantian fashion with categories that order nature mathematically. In such a view, we don’t have direct access to nature as the thing in itself, and so can’t claim that nature itself has such characteristics. Alternately, we could argue that the math isnt just in our categories but really is a property out there in the world. This is a different understanding of Platonism, placing the forms not in our heads but out there.
From Live Science:
Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.
Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.
“In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.
"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).
"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."
Yeah, that's fine. However I would tweak this a bit and say that math is a property of how things are arranged in reality. Which would make sense, because math is the result of observing how reality was already arranged by the time we started inductive observation. Meaning, it isn't that math is built into reality, but our math is devised as a means to process patterns in the manner reality was already arranged. You might think of this as the english equivalent of personification non-human entities.
Quoting Joshs
I already addressed the Tegmark book. It isn't accepted as something of much count. It's a hypothesis that cannot be tested, as we have no way to detect the math of reality, we can only see how matter, energy, space, time, and quanta arrange themselves. Math is not itself a compositional element, but a method by which we make sense of patterns of value.
Quoting Joshs
This is unbridled nonsense and why Tegmark hasn't caused any waves with his book. Physics isn't doomed and never has been. Tools and methods in physics grow year by year on a reliable basis without the bizarre assumption that reality is created by math.
That being said, I am glad someone brought at least one person to have made this claim to the table, even if he isn't compelling in any regard.
648647"]
Don’t forget Godel and Penrose. Here’s more from Penrose:
“The notion of mathematical truth goes beyond the whole concept of formalism. There is something absolute and "God-given' about mathematical truth. This is what mathematical Platonism, as discussed at the end of the last chapter, is about. Any particular formal system has a provisional and 'man-made' quality about it. Such systems indeed have very valuable roles to play in mathematical discussions, but they can supply only a partial (or approximate) guide to truth. Real mathematical truth goes beyond mere manmade constructions.”
Right, which is true. Mathematics can most certainly reveal universal patterns that go well beyond the boundaries basic human conceptualization. I defer you here to Eric Weinstein's theory geometric unity. And actually, I believe I have address Penrose here in the thread. But, I draw your attention to the topic: that mathematics is not objective, it is a conceptual system, not an element of composition. Penrose here is not saying that math exists in the universe, but that the truth that can be gleaned from the universe through the implementation of mathematics goes well beyond the confines of what we that it could be used for. Math is more a langauge for reality, rather than reality itself. In fact, it may be most proper to view this in terms of langauge. Langague is also not objective, but is used to give representation to either objects or subjective experiences that can be used to communicate about objective reality. The argument that Penrose is making about math, is the exact same argument I would make about langauge.
Ehhhhh.....those investigate humanity and its behaviors generally, albeit under empirical conditions, without due regard for man’s intrinsic metaphysical nature.
An Alaskan Inuit elder, back in The Day, when I commented how cool it was that they used snowmobiles instead of dog sleds......in giving me a glance reserved for young, white, practically useless cheechakos said, we love our things so much we are forgetting ourselves.
As an aside, it is contradictory to say that which is presupposed is the conditioned. Something you might wish to reconsider. Ethics cannot condition that which is presupposed for it.
No, I know what those fields, I was wanting you to elaborate on what you meant in the sentence containing them.
Quoting Mww
Young, white, practically useless? Are you a self hating white person? You should have told him snowmobiles are far superior to dog sleds. Which is why the Inuits are using them.
Quoting Mww
Presuppose: require as a precondition of possibility or coherence. Ethics presupposes morality. In other words, a sentence example might read: he did not do the ethical foot work that his moral code presupposes. If it is in this sense that you meant the word, then yes I would agree with you. Ethics is a precondition of a possible, or coherent moral code. I'm not sure you're in the right place, man. But, thanks for stopping by, I guess.
-G
I dont think he is simply saying that math is a language. There is. i necessary connection between words and real objects. If we view language in referential terms, a particular word in one language can refer to a real object in the world, but that word will be different in a different language. Or a culture may not even have a word for the object. Penrose is saying that mathematical truths are themselves real objects that can only be discerned through the intellect.
“Plato's world consists not of tangible objects, but of 'mathematical things'. This world is accessible to us not in the ordinary physical way but, instead, via the intellect. One's mind makes contact with Plato's world whenever it contemplates a mathematical truth, perceiving it by the exercise of mathematical reasoning and insight. This ideal world was regarded as distinct and more perfect than the material world of our external experiences, but just as real.”
Right, this is what he's fundamentally highlighting. You see, it's he and I that agree, not he and the people that think math is a compositional element of reality. Mathematics is this representative thing that allows insight into the Platonic realm of the Forms - which isn't thing, this realm. But, it inspires great wonder out of us for its utility across so many domains. Again, there's no way anyone here is actually meaning to say they believe math is a part of reality. We know that the laws of nature provide all of necessary strictures to arrange the actual compositional elements of reality into mathematically represented patterns. Again, man made concepts are not material matter and energy. This has gotten to the point where this topic has been completely derailed by an insistence on asserting that math is an objective fact of the universe, when we all know, and all scientists know, that it isn't. And Penrose is not claiming that it is.
Boy, you do a lot of whining, and with quite an arrogance. What is this ‘we all know that’ crap? I can’t think of any statement less philosophical in spirit than the self-satisfied ‘we all know that’. I am not a mathematical platonist, but Penrose is. I am just trying to clarify his position. You said that both you and Penrose believe math is a language. Penrose does not think math is just a language. Mathematical platonism asserts the following:
There are mathematical objects.
Mathematical objects are abstract.
Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their language, thought, and practices.
No, I do a lot of bringing to your attention that claims being made here are not scientific, yet you keep presenting me with views that do not argue with what I am saying, but confirm it; and then continue to present those very same arguments, even though I have already explained in detail everything you need to know about the subject and how nobody actually thinks math is a compositional element of this physical reality.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, Penrose is mathematical Platonist, meaning his sense of mathematics is that math has a place among the Platonic Forms.
Quoting Joshs
Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their langauge, thought, and practices... in the Platonic Realm of the Forms....Which doesn't exist. Even from Penrose's own view, his concept of the material world of mathematics is in that of the Forms, not in this material universe. Do you understand now?
Quoting Garrett Travers
I understand that you have an intense need to reduce complexities and ambiguities in ideas to caricatures. Perhaps philosophy isn’t a good match for you.
As the Stanford Encyclopedia states:
“Platonism must be distinguished from the view of the historical Plato. Few parties to the contemporary debate about platonism make strong exegetical claims about Plato’s view, much less defend it. Although the view which we are calling ‘platonism’ is inspired by Plato’s famous theory of abstract and eternal Forms, platonism is now defined and debated independently of its original historical inspiration.”
For modern mathematical platonists, “independence is meant to substantiate an analogy between mathematical objects and ordinary physical objects. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. In short, mathematical objects are just as “real” as ordinary physical objects.”
You may disagree with this view of math, as I do, but you should appreciate that more than a few scientists and mathematicians support it.
No, Mathematical Platonism is itself a psuedo-scientific caricature of proper theory.
Quoting Joshs
Not according to Penrose, but according to the general body of Mathematical Platonists that have had quite a difficulty explaining how objects that are " non-spatiotemporal and (therefore) causally inefficacious," - unlike electrons and other particles that can either be observed, or their effects observed - exist anywhere other than in their mind.
Quoting Joshs
No, electrons and planets have spatiotemporal presence that can be either observed in presence, or in their impressions and place under the inductive scrutiny of science. This is pseudo-scientific quackery.
Quoting Joshs
No, establishing the truth of statements regarding planets and electrons requires observation and experimentation. An inductive process not possible open to 'objects' that are "non-spatiotemporal and (therefore) causally inefficacious."
To place this sentence: "Perhaps philosophy isn’t a good match for you."
In the same statement as this sentence: "In short, mathematical objects are just as “real” as ordinary physical objects."
Is the kind of irony even numbers cannot be used to quantify. Which, judging from your strange, implacable commitment to pseudo-science - which Mathematical Platonism is by definition - qualifies it as just as "real" as ordinary physical objects.
1) As I said earlier, I do not personally support a platonist view of mathematics
2)Mathematical platonism isn’t supposed to be science. It’s metaphysics. You may not agree with this particular kind of metaphysical position, but the nature of metaphysics is that such that it stands as the ground and condition of possibility of scientific thought. Therefore it is not amenable to validation or falsification through empirical investigation, but only through philosophical argument.
So, if you don't agree with this view, and you know I said no scientist abides by it, and you've been arguing for it anyway, even though we were talking about the nature of ethics, then I'm gonna need to know why you've been wasting time on this absolute quackery instead of addressing what was the topic of this forum...
Oh dear… I guess I have a hard time resisting responding to sweeping generalizations like “no scientist abides by it”. Was it really necessary to pull that one out of your ass rather than saying something more measured and careful like ‘I hope not too many scientists abide by it’?
I’m reluctant to get into the main topic of the op when this is the way you deal with secondary topics.
What do you suppose would be the outcome of a poll of philosophers concerning the ‘absolute quackery’ status of mathematical platonism vs Objectivism? I’ll bet it would be pretty close, so you might try a slightly humbler stance.
A good description of the relationship between science and metaphysics.
Metaphysics is not the ground and condition of physics, nor physics the ground and condition for metaphysics. They are not separate self contained entities and need each other to blossom. You might have a metaphysical realm of mathematics, but you still need a physical realm to give meaning to it.
Quoting Joshs
No, I don't hope that is the case, I know it is the case that this isn't science. You may have a few scientist stragglers that cling to the concept, just like you do with every other nonsensical group of concepts. But, I know this isn't science and so do you. Nothing measured needed.
Quoting Joshs
No, you've been reluctant to get into the main topic this entire time, that's why you haven't addressed the topic and have instead waisted our time on an anti-scientific, metaphysical belief that we both know isn't true. As you have addmitted. As it happens you've also pointed out that it is a metaphysical domain, instead of a scientific one, which was literally my point the entire time. And you've also not answered my queation as to why, if you don't believe this nonsense and can't actually provide any scientists that argue a case for it in any compelling way, you have decided to spend so much time on it.
Quoting Joshs
Why would potential poll results on unrelated topics imply that I should take a more humble approach at anything? Why would I care what poll data suggest in any regard? I don't give a shit about appeals to majority or popularity.
Logical positivists may take this position, but I agree with the following:
“What has to be the case for genuine science as such to be possible? This is a question from outside science and is, by definition, a philosophical—even a metaphysical—question. Those who say that science can answer all questions are themselves standing outside science to make that claim. That is why naturalism—the modern version of materialism, seeing reality as defined by what is within reach of the sciences—becomes a metaphysical theory when it strays beyond methodology to talk of what can exist. Denying metaphysics and upholding materialism must itself be a move within metaphysics. It involves standing outside the practice of science and talking of its scope. The assertion that science can explain everything can never come from within science. It is always a statement about science.”
I see now, I worded it the wrong way. They are, in fact, each other's ground and condition, and take shape mutually. My fault...
Let’s see if we can clarify something. Metaphysical beliefs are commitments that guide scientists in their larger understanding of their subject matter, but that doesn’t mean that it directly affects how they interpret empirical
evidence. In fact, most scientists aren’t even aware of the background presuppositions they bring to the doing of science. 10 scientists on a room can all operate implicitly on the basis of slightly different metaphysical assumptions without this affecting in the slightest their ability to agree on the basic facts of their field of study. The fact that these are pre-suppositions doesn’t make them anti-scientific, it makes them conditions of possibility of science. Objectivism’s
view of science is informed by its own set of metaphysical assumptions.
Doesn't matter. You're still meandering on this topic because you've already wasted enough of our time instead of addressing the topic discussion. I don't care what you think scientists believe, and I don't anymore about Metaphysical Platonism any more than scientists do.
Quoting Joshs
If a hypothesis cannot be placed under the scrutiny of falsification, then it isn't science. And for someone who "doesn't believe in it," you sure seem to be quite its cheerleader.
Quoting Joshs
Yeah, induction, experimentation, and falsifiability. Objectivism is also an ethical philosophy, I don't know why you're bringing it up as far as its view of science. I don't know why it is you saying anything. You won't address the topic of discussion and you won't say why you've wasted our time on this non-theory.
@Joshs
GT - it is reasonable for you, as the original poster, to ask other posters to keep to the subject as laid out in the original post. Moderators will generally back you up if needed.
Especially when all you're doing is repeating a tired and defeated defense of a pseudoscientific concept that you don't even believe in. I'm pretty sure the only reason he's been here is to derail the discussion and nothing more.
I doubt that he's trying to derail the discussion. Philosophers and sort-of-philosophers get tunnel vision. Also - it's your responsibility to keep the discussion moving in the direction indicated in the OP.
I'm only saying all this because you're fairly new and I didn't know if you knew the mighty power of the OP.
Actually, I didn't. I was willing to entertain the debate until it came to the point where he confessed he didn't actually believe in this nonsense, and then continued to argue for it. That's not that kind of interaction I know, or to find out how to understand.
As long as you were ok with the tangent, that's fine. Given that, I thought @Joshs's argument was a reasonable one. I had made a similar point earlier in the thread. We can leave it at that.
I think you are confused between Epistemology of Ethics, Math, Science and their respective ontological natures! As all these are different areas of inquiry using different methods to gain knowledge and standards according to which validity of their knowledge is judged!
First lets clarify what Ethics even are!
I would like lay down some definitions:
As you know there are 3 areas of ethics:
1. Meta-ethics
2. Normative ethics
3. Applied ethics
It is not clean of which area Ethics you speak of, yet the very distinction matters!
What are Ethics?
Ethics are emergent from people arguing with each other and then they are made into laws... So they exist outside of an individuals and their (moral systems)! As an individual can't poses of Ethics! Yet Ethics are emergent property of individual moral systems contending with each other!
So to Ontology of Ethics: Ethics require perceivers (to exists as a system in minds of perceivers). But everyone has their own subjective biased mind: so by this very definition Ethics are subjective! So their own creation precisely is stemming from subjective agents! I know what you are already going to say, but bear with me...
Ethics in practice are negotiated by group of people based on what they think is right or wrong! Decisions are emotional, not logical: https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making/. I would argue that anyone decides based on the emotion at the end! Emotions are subjective! Emotions are just evolutionary mechanisms for survival!
For instance, if we say Ethics are subjective. One could claim, if we don't know every possible permutation and even then: we can know only what our perception presents us! Therefore we cannot refute idea of absolute ethics! So to claim ultimately ethics are subjective from our very own subjective experiences would be logical fallacy! We would say something like: under assumption of materialism - Ethics are subjective...
But at the same time, even if there were objective Ethics. We only get their subjective perceptions in our minds. Even if there were such a thing and it were discovered eventually: we still would have to agree upon it! Lets say: we find some underlying principle in nature to be ultimate Ethic! Unless people come together or agree on it, it would still mean nothing!!! As no one would abide by that system!
As again Ethics are emergent property of individuals arguing each other (with different moral standards) having top-down causation backwards to these agents!
Science cannot give us answers on when it is right to defend your property, abortion etc. As it is based on objective facts, which themselves are based inevitably on some assumptions!
I wouldn't necessarily say they are disoriented, or at worst misaligned entirely! But we are affected by our own perception and inherent biases for sure! As your own perception is already distorted, by which frame of reference you are considering ethics to be distorted?
E.g. people tend to prefer individuals from their group on trolley problem, or it would perhaps seem that our pre-existing biases lean us towards utilitarianism on a trolley problem, or people which are hungry judge crimes more harsly...
Which begs the question (if it is improper mode of viewing): what would be a proper mode? Can you state what and why is improper on viewing modes of Ethics according to you?
Hope this makes sense (I have low vIQ)!!! BTW I Am also a moral nihilist, relativist and non cognitivist! Even ultimately I can't prove it!
So, no I'm not confused at all, however I do appreciate the post. Thanks for stopping by. Let's tackle this:
I am not remarking on their ontological nature, I'm actually remarking on how they emerge from humans, the human mind, as devised methodologies for concluding the most optimal approach, in behavioral terms thereafter, within each respective domain. In other words, the cognitive process by which we formulate methods within each domain is the same, and happens to be governed by the same structure of the brain predominantly.
Quoting empleat
Normative Ethics. The domain that deals with devising ethical epistemologies that inform behaviors based on perspective of right and wrong action, moral or immoral. But, all of the above listed sub-branches are assessed in the manner I described: rationally, logically, objectively.
Quoting empleat
So, this is way too delimited in scope to encompass ethics. Ethics deals in the non-legal realm first and foremost, and as such the individual realm primarily. They only existd outside of the human as independently observable behavior of said human(s) who embody the morality of a given ethical framework.
Quoting empleat
Yes, that is my point exactly, such questions of objectivity or subjectivity are not applicable to ethics, yet everyone asks the same fallacious questions ad nauseum. Ethics is a theoretical, conceptual framework developed by humans to help them navigate the domain of proper behavior, both publicly and privately. It makes no sense to ask such questions of such a thing.
Quoting empleat
Precisely! God, I'm glad you get it. You're my new friend.
Quoting empleat
Right, you need a framework for assessing such dilemmas, hence ethics as a philosophical practice.
Quoting empleat
The distortion isn't ethics. The distortion is the peception of ethics of the individuals asking the fallacious questions that aren't appropriate to ethics, or any other conceptual framework usde for assessing phenomena.
Quoting empleat
Sure, I can accept this. But, this is not clearly a result of rational assessment, but an emotional assessment, which is specifically what the trolley problem was designed to do. Ultimately the trolley problem isn't a problem at all. To explain: it is absurd hypothetical gotcha that leaves out every other detail associated with why those people are bound to train tracks, and separately at that, and in different groups of numbers, without providing ANY context for who is responsible for this and what is being done about it. It is fallacious along multiple dimensions as an argument. Begging the question, cherry-picking, ad hominem, and more.
Quoting empleat
A proper mode of viewing ethics is in terms of what it is in function, source, application, reliability, and comparison with similar practices. Which is what I propose.
Quoting empleat
Oooo, I haven't actually ever met one. Are you prepared to defend such a position to a trained ethicist that holds that ethics provides numerous objective frameworks by which to assess moral behavior? If so, let's do this, eh?
Lol finally someone who can talk facts without crying when first disagreement occurs :)
Oh boy, you triggered my OEs, there is like trillions of things to talk about - I Am going crazyyyyyy...
Note: I should add that I Am a layman, so I may have gap in knowledge! I have also chronic pain and like 90IQ now, so it is not best time, but I Am also bored so I answered... I Am open to all possibilities and change my positions if given proof, or my arguments are logically inconsistent etc.
Quoting Garrett Travers
That makes sense to go to a source! Which is not even currently possible to study, so that's tough to tackle right now! Maybe when QM advances to explain the brain, but till :(
But still you are assuming that going to a source will actually reveal some hidden principle of emergence of ethics? And perhaps allow us to reveal some hidden ethical principle in nature, or what? I don't understand what you are exactly expect to find there???
Quoting Garrett Travers
Are you sure about that, because I have no idea!!!
Quoting Garrett Travers
What do you mean by individual realm (I Am very bad in language), that Ethics must exist in each individual?
I meant it more like: Ethics exists outside of me, even if I die, or 1000 people die, they will still exist as an immaterial information i.e. as Ethical system in all other people. So from my perspective Ethics are external to me. I can only have morals, although I Am part of that Ethical system as well. But more people than 1 must exist for Ethics to exist!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Why it makes no sense to ask such questions? They guide our whole lives and law etc. I mean if we had nothing right now - civilization as we know it wouldn't be possible! It doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to explore every possibility! I would say: it doesn't make sense to make absolute statements about Ethics!
That would like to trying to persuade that utilitarianism is better than consequentialism to someone lying of the very rails... From perspective of that very person: it doesn't make any sense in 99.9% of cases under any framework: that it would be objectively better to save 5 people, than 1! That 1 person wouldn't care, even if million of other people died... Why would he had to suffer so terribly in that case? He can't feel their pain, only indirectly! Only in case his pain from other 5 people dying would exceed his pain from dying, then that would make sense...
But from perspective of society: we could say 5 people have more value for survival of a society (within a context)! So therefore it is ethical to save 5!
Ethics at least from material point of view: are always dependent on a context therefore - relative! And on people enacting them therefore - subjective!
Nevertheless it has a value to a society asking these questions! Isn't precisely asking, rising and exploring these questions what gave emergence to Ethics? As Ethics are observer dependent, if you don't like current Ethics, but went to find their origin into their brain. Wouldn't they be still subjective distortions? Or do you like expect they could be guided by some underlying principles in nature or what?
E.g. we could find best possible Ethical decision in any given situation to make in terms of survival... Which still doesn't make them objective moral facts! As ethics are always at odds with survival of an individual and why individual should do something, which causes him to lose value? So lets say: claim that you should sacrifice yourself for 5 people wouldn't be still morally objective!
What someone wants to see someone brutally tortured from a revenge, and threats to release a virus which would kill millions? Is it right to let that person to be tortured in order to save lives of millions? How do you decide that? Again Ethics concerns with what is good for masses, but I Am trying to show dichotomy between Ethics concerning how we ought to act against individual vs masses!
If believed to save millions and thereafter you flipped his place, would be believe still the same?!
Quoting Garrett Travers
But you assume that there is such a thing that objective Ethics independent of subjective mind of an observer?
As these distortions are the very distortions which defined the Ethics :D How are our definitions of Ethics more objective than their conceptual frameworks?! This confuses me greatly!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah I know it is a through experiment. I mentioned it as example: that people decide at the end based on their emotions!
Quoting Garrett Travers
If we can't even agree upon what Ethics are? Except that they are: "systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".
I have good one for you: how do you define what is right and wrong in the first place??? From observing a subjective mind? Everyone views some behavior to be right or wrong, that does not mean there is some objective right/wrong! And that there is a way to rationally, logically to determine it!
Well if you want to study origin of Ethics in a brain. How they come to be! Wouldn't you still need eventually to end up with some system of Ethics? So I will ask, what other system would that be? As I doubt you could come up with some objective system with comparison with similar practices!
Consider this China wants to get ahead so they haste industrial revolution, but in US they had different Ethics. It doesn't make sense to compare similar practices in these 2 countries and expect to find some underlying principle! Because they are situational!
Besides: your proposition seems way too generic! And isn't this what Ethics are exactly trying to accomplish - as what you said?!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Didn't you just say that it is distorted to view Ethics are objective and so on... :D ? I don't understand!
Well my position is this:
While I know you can't prove, or disprove anything ultimately, except maybe - "I think therefore I Am"... I Am not good at talking so there are probably a lots of gaps between what I say and I give different modality to each statement, it would take to long to dissect every word... Also this is with an assumption of materialism being true!
First lets distinguish 2 separate things:
1. reasoning
2. decision making
It hinges on the claim that people decide at the end always based on emotions, this also distorts their reasoning e.g. about ethical claims...
Since people decide at the end always on emotions - I would argue. People with iron rod in their head couldn't make almost any decisions at all! All if not all: decisions are largely emotional, not logical! As people don't decide how one should act, or others based purely on logic. E.g. we don't let sit jury in a court, if they were mugged! Because they could be biased!
You can make rational, logical, objective claims about ethics and morals. However people don't respond to these almost at all! As people rationalize their believes of what they already believe using logic! And talking about moral acts evokes moral emotions, which affects their decision-making: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083636/
As people form their moral standards by their lived experiences: values passed by parents, religion, their own moral standards (but how people ought to act is determined largely by moral emotions)!!!
Note: emotions are universal expressions, based on information you gather in life. But they are subjective and relative, as everyone gathered different experiences and had different reactions to them!
Whereas people with ASD don't include emotions into their reasoning/moral reasoning: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/
If you ask normal people any ethical question, they will give very biased answer based on their: morals, values, culture, religion and so on... And they won't understand logic, rationality behind an argument!
As people decide in the end always on emotions and emotions are just evolutionary mechanisms for survival, which have universal expressions, but are based on past experiences: therefore they are subjective and relative!
I would argue that Ethics are nothing more than extension of emotions - in this case for survival of a whole race! As if Ethics didn't exist and people would do what they want, civilization as we know wouldn't be possible! So as goal of emotions is survival of an individual, goal of Ethics is survival of a race! As Ethics don't benefit always individuals, but primarily a race as a whole!
I think today most logical people lean towards Ethical Relativism, or Moral Nihilism and Non Cognitivism. Because these are only things which makes sense, as sad as it sounds!
Ethical Relativism:
Now, I claim that ethics are:
1. relative:
Because Ethics different per culture! Each culture has different environment and unique set of challenges! And different Ethics per situation allow it to survive the best! It is just what group of individuals enforced: what they think collectively is the best (based on their individual emotions)...
2. subjective:
There is no underlying Ethical principle, Philosophers are heavily split on Ethical positions. And no one discovered yet one upon which all would agree!
Moral Nihilism:
There is no right/wrong in nature: these are human made concepts to survive! We only given labels based on what feels good/bad emotionally to moral statements... As positive emotion is something which is good for you, whereas negative the opposite! What difference it makes, if I save 100 children from fire, or become serial murderer? Difference in eyes of society? Sure! Difference in my survival? Sure! But in terms of universe, what does it actually matter? Everything just is... That is not to say we should all become Moral Nihilist, as you need morals for survival still...
Non Cognitivism:
Because statements about ethical proposition can't be assigned true/false value. They are only mechanism for survival in a given environment, situation... Which are not true, or false per se, they simply are! We merely give these proposition right/wrong values as truth/false, to survive!
To add:
Quoting Garrett Travers
What is truth? You are asking hardest question ever proposed: https://bigthink.com/thinking/hardest-question-world-what-truth/
Quantum Mechanics tells us nothing of the nature of macroscopic material interactions, let alone ones that govern a biological entity with complex thinking like humans. From humans thoughts emerge, as well as perceptions, abstractions, and ultimately concepts. Conceptualization comes from the structures of the brain working in unison with the prefrontal cortex which supplies executive function and superior-patter-processing. These cognitive attributes are used to create frameworks that are employed by humans to achieve desired out comes in certain realms, e.g. science for observation and prediction, jazz for music composition, math for mapping values to universal patterns, and ethics for behavior. A couple of resources that might help stimulate where I'm coming from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622/ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2017.00431/full
Quoting empleat
Ethics begins as a development within the thought processes of an individual, much like one understands the scientific method in his/her own time because the brain has to process those concepts, and is then employed externally. Meaning, ethics is a subjective methodology devised by the individual human mind, and the objectively embodied in behaviors both privately, as well as publicly. Just like scientific theories are formulated in the mind as a result of observation, and then placed under the scrutiny of falsification.
Quoting empleat
Right, which is specifically what I wanted to highlight with this forum, that people are stuck in that idea of thinking ethics externally, or divinely disseminated. It's just not applicable. No, ethics only exist in the world insomuchas they are embodied as behaviors. Those behaviors constitute your morality, or moral code, that is pressuposed, or informed and molded by, your subjective ethical theorization. That's what I'm saying. Quoting empleat
That's right, to make absolute statements about ethics doesn't make sense. Meaning, it follows that asking questions of the same absolute nature also don't make sense, anymore than what they would for science, or jazz. They're all conceptual frameworks, they're non-absolutes.
Quoting empleat
I actually dismiss the trolley problem as something imaginary and devoid of any details that would ever happen in reality. In reality some passerby wouldn't have be the only one who could fix the such a problem. wouldn't know how to, and isn't obliged to. There are an endless panoply of details missing from such a hypothetical for it to be relevant to any ethical consideration.
Quoting empleat
Unless those five people are mass murderers... Again, missing details, not a real ethical dilemma and would never happen.
Quoting empleat
Bingo! Ethics is the formalized methodology, or methodologies that we have come to call epistemologies of ethics, that are employed by humans to deduce from observable and logical data the best course of behavior in a given situation, or across situations. Those behaviors that we conclude are universally acceptable in accordance with that logical and observable data driven process, outside of anomaly, are our moral code. Behaviors that that we conclude are universally unacceptable in accordance with that logical and observable data driven process, outside of anomaly, are behaviors we call evil, or wrong.
Quoting empleat
Yes, it is when they are found in behavior that they are objective.
Quoting empleat
Yes, of nature, logic, observable phenomena like results of given behavior, degree of responsibility your actions will have for humans that are not you, ability to relegate the results of an action to being experienced by only oneself, avoidance of addictive pleasure, rationality over whim, independent verification over faith, fulfillment of contract, committment to truth, and many more standards of which are available to all people and are contained in almost every single ethical epistemology ever written, even if they are written independently of one another, or in different contexts.
Quoting empleat
Sure, but I don't think anybody would argue such a case. I would argue that in such a case, ethics is no longer applicable, as the only thing that could create that scenario is the threat of death for all if not fulfilled, thereby revoking from you your rational mind, which is where conceptualization takes. Meaning, no ethics in that case. But, again, you're falling into the "moral objectivity" trap again. There is no moral objectivity, the objectively standardized morals, subjectively assessed for their quality. Just like with all other conceptual frameworks, one can only strive to be AS objective as possible.
Quoting empleat
That is correct. But, then you embody the moral code that your ethical framework produces and voila! Objectivity!
Quoting empleat
Yes, I understand the difference.
Quoting empleat
There is, the human who objectively embodies said ethical framework in the form of behavior. Not that they are written in some extramundane space tablet the we all must abide by. Is that how anyone looks at, or questions the scientific method? As being apart from the independent mind without being embodied by scientists? That's what I'm highlighting.
Quoting empleat
I listed the standards above, but there are many more. You standardized behaviors and you vet them for the qualities I listed. That's how you choose what is right and wrong. Just as the behaviors of observation in science were vetted for their quality control, in an attempt to produce the optimal results within that domain.
Quoting empleat
That's how we determine everything else we desire the answer to.
Quoting empleat
Yes, but if you're studying such a history, you'll be looking at a far more primordial view of ethics. Such as behavior predicated on food procurement, procreation, sleep, and tribal harmony, all in the pursuit of continuing life, which happens to be the fundamental code of nature that you can't break, generally speaking.
Quoting empleat
I can't quite make out what these two paragraphs are saying, sorry. Maybe clear that up for me?
Quoting empleat
So, this great. Every single one of your premises were spot on, as far as I can tell. I accept them all as fact, as far as science reveals to us thus far. All except one, which was the assumption that ALL humans base their ethics on emotions, or that because most do, that such should inform YOUR ethical deliberations. I would in fact argue such a thing isn't possible, unless one values their emotions above logic, in which case they will base their ethics on emotion. However, a distinction needs to made between types of people, as the emotional processing center is controlled by the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive actions which include individual value placement and logical assessment that is circulated in the emotional processing. This is important because individuals have the capacity to reorganize their ethical deliberations in accordance with said value placement. You might think of people who get "saved" and then change their behavior as a result of said value shift. This happens with logic and rationality, if elevated as a value by an individual, just as it does with Jesus. Meaning, the more resonable position, based on what we know of cognition, is that cognitivism and non-cognitivism are compatible concepts within the context of multiple people. You might also remember that emotion can be used to empower the integration of values such as logic and rationality, which the brain is doing on it's own anyway as a part of its nature. More here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5405011/
But, again, ethics is relative to the individual ethical theorist, but so is all theorization. That doesn't mean that objective standards for theorization can't be agreed upon, or that those objective standards can't be translated to objective behavior in a physical body. And, furthermore, if the body is a physical, objective entity, then too is the brain objective that governs the body. And then too are the chemicals objective that dictate the function of the objective brain that gives rise to emotion that informs objective behavior, that is then processed by the prefrontal cortex of the objective brain, after which logical assessment can be made to inform even more objective behaviors. Kind of cool, huh?
Quoting empleat
Yep, no problems here, except the emotions bit I expounded on.
Quoting empleat
That is correct. Just as there is no underlying scientific truth, sounds kind of funny doesn't? Underlying subjective truth? Underlying ethical truth sounds exactly the same way to me for the same reason.
Quoting empleat
Yes, that is correct, moral codes must be established through rational, logical, objectively standardized assessment. So for example, to claim moral nihilism as a moral principle by which your ethical code functions is illogical. The absence of ethics cannot be a standard of ethics, if ethics has no objective element. There's a standard.
If you save a hundred children you have prolonged life that had no intention of ending, while also increasing the overall happiness of all those involved exponentially. If you become a serial murder you perform life-ending acts on behalf of those that did not desire it, thereby decreasing the overall happiness of all those involved. One is logically consistent, the other isn't. There's a couple standard.
The claim that no right/wrong exists in nature only serves to justify the wrong and dismiss that which could be right, as to claim there is no right/wrong is to make the claim that you are right about the universe having a right/wrong - how can that be if there's no right/wrong?- that's logically inconsistent and self-contradictory.
Behaviors have effects in the natural universe, which is the definition of matter. And if "mattering" is subjective, then who is a moral nihilist to claim such a state of mind is right/wrong? It's not possible for you to conclude, but you have. Self-contradictory.
To claim that nothing matters in the universe is to make a fact value judgement about it that you are going to use to inform your actions, thereby imbuing your objective behavior with meaning, as it is motivated by a perceived fact. Furthermore, to make the claim nothing matters in the universe and no ethics, and then to proceed to a debate about ethics and meaning is to place value IN the concept of no-meaning, thereby self-detonating nihilism with meaning imparted to it from that very same nihilist claiming the universe has no meaning and no ethics. Self-Contradictory.
Quoting empleat
An innate element of reality that can be independently verified, falsified, and related to by other things of its nature, or within its sphere of proximal influence. This definition combines both correspondence theory and coherence theory of truth into one easily digestable definition.
FYI, if we continue this insanely long conversation, I say we move from here to messenger and tackle these one at a time, or we simply tackle them here one at a time henceforth. So, for next post, just pick on thing you want clarity on and I will assess it, and I do the same for you. Sound good?
Are you 100% sure about that, what about microtubules? My understanding is that it is not currently clear: whether or not QM plays role in a human brain!
Sorry, I have chronic brutal headaches, I currently can't read things like this (I can read barely 5-15 minutes at once) and even then: not sure if this is something which can be understood without background in neuroscience, unless there are well established facts in scientific circles, which I can draw upon.
Quoting Garrett Travers
I would disagree. Morals yes! But Ethics are emergent based on interaction of each individual in a group! I would include multiple of peoples in definition of Ethics!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah I got this part. Even it doesn't look so, I Am confused in use of language mainly!
Quoting Garrett Travers
I meant it that they have to exist in other people as well for Ethics to exist! As individual can posses only of morals! And then they have top-down causation on a society! I can't poses of Ethics alone, yet my moral standards are informed by Ethics which are coming from other people (therefore external to me). And I agree - that Ethics are embodied (in the real world) only as behaviors.
I could be wrong! But I wouldn't say: I myself have Ethics! But as group of people (with their individual moral standards) based how they interact are part of a Ethical system. And then individual moral standards are informed by group Ethics. Yes everyone in a group has part of Ethics, but I would say: it is something that transcends individual and exist external to him mostly in other people! And is constantly changed how each and all parts interact within that group of people
So I would assert: that Ethics alone cannot exist in a individual mind, yet all individual together are part of a Ethical system!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Riiiight! I get confused with words quickly and entangle, I see too many ambivalencies, that I quickly lose track and again I can't stress how low verbal IQ I have + chronic pain. I need exact definitions, anything little ambiguous and I totally lose myself in words!
Quoting Garrett Travers
I think what I was trying to say, that you won't learn probably much from origin of Ethics in brains! Without taking into context situations etc. Even if that behavior would be objective once studies by a science, I don't think we still could infer objective morals facts!
I gave that as an example: because I don't know what do you expect to find? Because even if we knew how Ethics are formed in the brain, that doesn't make them right, or wrong inherently! Because I would argue, that individuals give labels of things based on how they feel! I think Ethics are just whatever is group enforced within that group and exists just for survival of a race! So goal of Ethics I would say: is to maximize survival of a group against individuals!
But nevertheless it would be interesting to study that!
Quoting Garrett Travers
As you define right/wrong that is basically moral nihilism! Whatever works for any given goal established by society best is right/wrong... That being survival in general!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah that is my point - moral nihilism! Ethics are whatever group of people enforced to suit them the best! What is good for one person, doesn't have to be good for anyone. That's why I have problem defining objectively good! It could lead to reverence of some perverse Ethical system, as to be objectively good! At the end right/wrong is whatever we as a society come to terms with!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Note: I Am not trying to be a contrarian, nor do I think I know better! “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” - Plato. Just warning, as it could sound like that! I usually get into problems with people, because of that... It is hard to give one answer, as I give different modalities to my statements and to bridge like postulates, hypotheses, theorizes etc. Because if I feel something intuitively very strongly, yet I cannot prove it, it makes me crazy and I have so low verbal intelligence, I can't express it!!!
Yeah but we know for a fact that decisions aren't solely logical! And emotions play large role in a decision making! Which are subjective based on past experiences! Even Elon Musk says neocortex is trying to satisfy limbic system most of them time!
https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making/
This is only correlation but: "They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat.".
True even if you don't feel emotions they are still there. Or possibly parts of brain which facilitates them are disconnected! It would be interesting to see, in a fully disconnected brain from areas which process emotions, what would happen!
If this interest you, you can try this book from bigthink article: https://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Error-Emotion-Reason-Human/dp/014303622X
I wanted to read about emotions more, but didn't have time to do so. I don't know currently how well is this backed up by science! I don't know what I think anymore :( I just think this is something worth exploring! No other scenarios give sense to me logically, I don't know what would change my view at this point about this!
Also from that link about ASD and Alexithymia, people with Alexithymia don't see morally wrong accidental harm! Because they can't feel their emotions! So I would argue moral judgements are based on emotions at least (from large extent)! And cannot fully escape them! And when there is disconnect from our emotions: it affects our moral judgements and standards, because we tend to think about them more logically...
Quoting Garrett Travers
While I agree, I would be perhaps Effective Altruist. But I Am depressed that there is no right/wrong. Everything is neutral!
Yeah see I have big problem with this! This cannot be true! Problem is people don't form their moral positions on based convoluted theories, carefully thought out using logic, rationality! Just watch some online debates on morals/ethics :D :D :D
Just look how split are we about issues like abortion etc. If we were using logic to developing our Ethics, why would we be that split on everything?! Yes everything benefits differently to different people, but still some neutral issues like abortion. Religion is also a problem! But still...
There is no logical, rational way to create moral codes! As right/wrong is purely subjective! Everyone feels differently about what is rational! People don't choose their moral standards on pure logic - trust me!
Yes you can find logically what would be best to do for survival of a race, but still not all people have to feel the same way, even if you logically explain it to them! That's what I Am trying to say! People decide their moral subjectively based on emotions e.g. from that link about ASD, Alexithymia and moral judgements - people with Alexithymia don't see morally wrong accidental harm!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/
Some individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exhibit atypical emotional processing, and moral judgments. This may be because people with ASD, either use only their logical part of brain, or emotional!
I still think people act morally based on their emotions... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083636/
Quoting Garrett Travers
Jesus? What??? LMAOOOOO :)
Yeah but one doesn't choose value based on logic and rationality. I think this is absolutely not true!!! It is just my opinion, but I seen too much human behavior broadly and I think just never happens!
"Philosophers have debated the role of emotions in moral reasoning; although some argue that morality is a purely rational process, based upon deliberative reasoning (Cudworth, 1996; Kant, 1785/1965), others emphasize the role of emotions (Hume, 1777/1960; Prinz, 2004). It is now generally accepted that both emotional and rational processes contribute to moral decision-making"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532317/
So I don't think: you can't take out of equation emotions to say the least!
I would also argue that emotions play huge role in forming moral standards:
"Consistent with a role for the identification of one’s own emotion during moral reasoning, increased alexithymia is associated with more utilitarian decision-making (Patil & Silani, 2014b), and increased perceived permissibility of accidentally harming others (Patil & Silani, 2014a).".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083636/
"Moral emotions represent a key element of our human moral apparatus, influencing the link between moral standards and moral behavior."
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yes that's what I Am exactly talking about! People assimilate their values based how they feel about them, not based on their rational deliberations! Why are there so many racist/extremist people? People don't think rationally, they rationalize their believes! Especially when it comes to morals, people form their morals based on what they believe is good. E.g. instilled values from parents etc. We feel emotions based on gathered information in life. Your background is absolutely gonna affect your moral judgements and forming of moral standards! They are not excerpt from emotions!!!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Then didn't you just agree, that it is on emotions whether or not you integrate such values? Based how you feel about them? Or what to think about them?
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah but limbic system has system for evaluating information of its own, it is not entirely logical like neocortex! Emotions are our bodily feedback loops whether physical or psychological, based on information we gather!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_in_decision-making
Like:
- you feel disappointment (because limbic system identified based on your previous experiences that something is not worth your time) but it doesn't mean necessarily that it is true.
- or you because you hate someone you don't listen to his arguments
Emotions are rational, they just evolutionary mechanisms for survival! Yes they are themselves objective, but their meaning is subjective! Emotions are absolute terrible when it comes to judging right moral action: wrongly misplaced empathy, love, conformity! They allow us survive!
How would I explain this? How would I explain this? How would I explain this? Aaaaaaaaa...
Let me give you absolutely atrocious example (I don't know why I heard 10k of them, but I can't recall any): you want to maximize well being in a group and you have 100 000$ to distribute. How do you measure to which people to give money. As you can't know the future and what your decision is gonna exactly do!!! What if you give money to person, which would do the most with it in a given environment. But you have no way of measuring that?
How do you decide what is right/wrong in that context? You don't! World is too complex, people don't use primarily and ultimately rationality and logic when judging what is right/wrong!
Even back and forth regulations happen between neocortex and limbic system, still we decide at the end what feels good I hypothesize!
I philosophize: because if you didn't have emotions how would decide anything? If we omit reptilian brain like: pain and instincts. There is absolutely no logical reason to do anything in the world!!! I argue that without emotions you would have no reason to do absolutely anything and you would just stand on a place and die from thirst eventually... Therefore everything is motivated by emotions!!!
If there were no desires, there would be no reason to do anything!!! https://academyofideas.com/2013/12/the-ethics-of-schopenhauer/
"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#cite_ref-28
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah, I absolutely agree with that! Yes so cool weeeeeeeeeeeeee xDD
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah, but you are assuming already we have all the same standards, or we can agree on them!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Wait what? While hazily think I understand what you are saying and it makes logically sense...
I think ultimately that right/wrong depends on a subject. Be that subject an objective thing, you can call it objective right/wrong. But then is just matter of interpretation! If anyone can have their right/wrong. How can you determine which right/wrong is more righter/wronger :D ? As I doubt there is any contextual objective right, as everyone have different experiences!
Using rationality? Which itself is for purpose of some goal. Even if both parties agree on rational conclusion, they have to accept same Ethical standard anyways! If that goal for someone: is survival does that mean we should maximize our survival as race? Or if that goal is to minimize suffering, despite lowering our chances of survival as a society - should we do that?! See what I mean?
Everything just is, everything is neutral. We only use right for positive emotion and wrong for negative emotion. Which themselves are no more right or wrong than 1 atoms compared to other atom! As positive and negative emotions are already a construct!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah but what does it matter if I increase overall happiness? You can say for survival of a race. I ask again why? You can say to make myself happen, because I don't want other people to see suffer. But again I may ask why AD Infinitum!
As right/wrong is immaterial information stored in a matter. You would have to define first right/wrong and then prove there is something right/wrong. And it aren't just labels we give to neutral phenomena like physical forces, information...
If you say something because it is right, it is like how does that matter? I will die and everyone, even universe will die and so on... That's why I think moral nihilism is true, because either way it doesn't matter... Even as I human being which can feel pain, I want to see society thrive, because it makes my life better, as sad this is... And if I can't ultimately know that, that I need learn learn learn, in case it would be otherwise... I have also other important reason I can't tell you about!!!
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah I can see how this can be confusing, I have my reasons.
But I don't know what I said now, because I sick of scrolling (even in other browser tab). But I can't absolutely know it has no meaning, probably it isn't about us, because universe doesn't give crap about us! I can't ultimately prove it. So there is goes, I have so many positions with so many modalities, how I can even say something, when 10 other things leaches from elsewhere and all these overarching things.
While if you ask me specific think I admit it. I care only about truth and I Am dialectical. Because I Am surviving on negative entropy :D Otherwise I would go crazy! And even I Am depressed, I have my reasons. I Am forced to learn 24/7 once I Am better, there is nothing else anyways and what I can do...
Quoting Garrett Travers
Yeah but how do you determine what is a reality, if everything is filtered though your brain and what about noumenal things? What if I say there is a red carpet and it is my truth and you hear blue and see blue and it is your truth? Which is which?
Or what if there are mutually exclusive truths: https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/reality.htm
I don't know, this one is really hard... Don't have really strength to think about it right now!
Quoting Garrett Travers
I had the same idea :D
Depends what you want to talk about, I can't currently read anything complicated! I don't know what is your background in neurology, but I know nothing about that! So it is not like I would have be able to learn that soon anyways, if that is something complicated which requires expertise in that area!
I Am good at Logic/Philosophy and verifying "some" facts... I know on the surface from all areas of sciences, some broad and mostly very specific things. So I have good ideas, but I don't have expertise in science! I know what I can know and if I don't know, that I don't claim anything as a fact...
Damn it, bud. I wanted to tackle individual topics at a time to limit all this writing, lol! Which one you want me to hit first? Quote it and I'll respond to it directly, and we'll go from there.
I wanted just to give last answer, because I wasn't sure if you want to continue talking. And I thought you would PM me if so. Do you have discord? PM me if so.
No, I don't have discord. But, yeah, I'll dm.