for the rational nature of man is the only conceivable foundation for a rational system of ethics
How can this be true if you cannot derive an ought from an is. It seems that the word "moderate" would fit better than rational in this case (moderate as in not extremist on moral issues or indecisive)
Deleted UserOctober 26, 2018 at 04:03#2223960 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood so if it just so happens that I want to slaughter humans then I am perfectly morally justified in doing so/I should do so? Also Quoting tim wood
If X is what you want, then you ought to do Y.
Still does not follow. Ex:
Eating 200 kgs of cake is what I want. I ought to eat 200 kgs of cake
Killing humans is what I want (I don't). I ought to kill humans
Reply to tim wood why is it silly? As far as I can see this guy grounds morality in human wants and needs and so if everyone wanted to kill X then they should kill X
Deleted UserOctober 26, 2018 at 04:37#2224150 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood I get the form now. I just don't understand why getting an ought from a want never occurred to anyone. I'ma do some thinking and research now if you don't mind
Reply to tim wood no I still think it's a semantic shift. The "ought" you cannot obtain from an is is an objective moral ought such as "one ought not to kill" however the ought being obtained here is not moral but more so procedural. Ex:
I want to wake up early. I ought to set an alarm.
In this case the whole statement can be rephrased "I must set an alarm in order to fullfill my desire of waking up early"
Children suffer when not vaccinated. Parents should vaccinate their children
In this case "Parents should vaccinate their children in order for them not to suffer" is a valid restatement but that doesn't translate to "parents should vaccinate their children". In the same way "I must set an alarm in order to fullfill my desire of waking up early" doesn't translate to "I ought to set an alarm". It seems to me like this formula hides the problem rather than solves it
I don't know if this example is really good. I'll try to elaborate if I find a better one
The difference is in the desire: "waking up early" vs. "children not suffering". You may desire to wake up at a certain hour for any number of reasons, none of which need to contain a moral aspect; desiring that children not suffer, on the other hand, is more narrow, and is harder to divorce from a moral aspect.
Reply to Noble Dust
My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children.
Translates to: I should vaccinate my children in order to prevent their suffering
However that does not translate to: I should vaccinate my children
The first should is procedural the second is moral. It is a semantic shift as far as I can see
My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children.
Is procedural. It's the same should as in the sentence "I want to eat cake. I should eat cake"
My point is that the only thing this formula can derive is procedural shoulds. It cannot derive the moral should that is meant in the sentence "you cannot derive an ought from an is"
Procedural: You should X because Y requries X
Moral: You should do X because it is morally correct
So in this case it is "I should vaccinate they children to satisfy my want of protecting them" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct"
Is procedural. It's the same should as in the sentence "I want to eat cake. I should eat cake"
It's not the same; the desire to eat cake is not the same as the desire for children not to suffer. Your entire conception of the "procedural vs. moral" here precludes the existence of the moral. To want to eat cake is by nature a personal pleasure, since there's no inherent health benefits to eating cake. The only other benefits are marginally social; it's a birthday party, and so, by eating cake, I partake in the social scene, and I feel a part of that scene, and there are moral implications to wanting to be part of the social situation. But if I'm alone and have a desire to eat cake, I can do that, but there's no moral implications. On the other hand, the desire that my children not suffer is patently different, and not "procedural" in the same way. Desiring that my children not suffer is a desire for their own well-being, which introduces the moral. "Wanting to eat cake" is personal, but "not wanting my children to suffer" is transpersonal.
Reply to Noble Dust No but the REASON being cited in this case by this formula (My desire is X therefore I should do Y) is procedural. The expression "My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children." Translates to: "I should vaccinate my children in order to satisfy my want for them not to suffer" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct". What benefits there are for eating cake are or protecting children don't matter in this case. All this formula proves is that in order to satisfy certain wants, one must do certain actions. Even if I had formulated it like:
"My want is the well-being of my children therefore I should vaccinate them"
That still translates to:
"I should vaccinate my children to satisfy my desire of their well being"
What is being cited as the reason for the should here? Procedure. Wish fulfillment. That's all this formula proves. It doesn't prove that any action is moral irrespective of desire
If the desired should is procedural as defined in my last comment then you CAN obtain a should from an is anyways so there is no need for this formulation
"Vaccinations are necessary for parents to protect children"
translates to:
"It is the case that if a parent wants to protect their children they should (procedural) vaccinate them"
"This parent wants to protect their children"
"It is the case that this parent should vaccinate their children"
No but the REASON being cited in this case by this formula (My desire is X therefore I should do Y) is procedural. The expression "My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children." Translates to: "I should vaccinate my children in order to satisfy my want for them not to suffer" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct". What benefits there are for eating cake are or protecting children don't matter in this case. All this formula proves is that in order to satisfy certain wants, one must do certain actions. Even if I had formulated it like:
"My want is the well-being of my children therefore I should vaccinate them"
That still translates to:
"I should vaccinate my children to satisfy my desire of their well being"
But why does it always "translate" to the procedural being first? In what way is it first? What does "translate" mean here? Translate literally? Figuratively? If figurative, can you show how a figurative (poetic) use of the word translate is logically sound? What?
I do agree; the fault in your argument is that you take one, and then say it translates to the other, while admitting that the use of "translates to" is a tautology.
I don't care about whether it's viewed by someone or other as procedural, because I know, morally, that it's wrong. See how that works? The "procedural" comes after the moral.
Reply to Noble Dust ok replace "should" with "must be done in order to complete the task of:" and the formulation still makes sense. It's not deriving shoulds so much as it's deriving hows
How does any of that relate to the moral? At what point do you, personally, feel comfortable introducing the "moral"? What grounds are sufficient for you to introduce the "moral"?
Reply to Noble Dust personally, self evidence. Morality has to be a premise no one can disagree with (Note: no one CAN disagree with not no one DOES) which is why I don't think an objective one exists. I'm more of a contractarian. I believe morality (as most people use the word) is a contract between people that helped them survive and consequently there are many possible ways to do that
Reply to Noble Dust something that cannot be false/can verify itself.
Ex: I am Conscious.
There is no way for this to be false. I can't be having an "illusion" of consciousness for that would require a conscious observer to have the illusion.
And yeah that's the only one I found
Note: I could be lying about my Consciousness and be a zombie but the point is that IF I am truly Conscious, there is no way for me to deny it. Morality has to be something like that, it has to derive from something undeniable for it to he truly objective
No, I meant "self-evidence" (your usage) is contradictory with the idea that a moral premise that no one CAN vs. DOES (your usage) disagree with is contradictory.
Reply to Noble Dust I meant that I need a moral premise that is self evident that no one can disagree with (just repeating). That's all. The no one does thing meant that if everyone agrees on a moral premise but it is not self evident then it is still not a moral premise (because someone is eventually going to disagree)
Reply to Noble Dust ok I'm fine with stalling. Because what you consider to be morally good or bad is ultimately a subjective perception meaning that it can never be made known to other observers nor can it be confirmed that they have that same perception.
Reply to Noble Dust another way to say it is that it simply possible to disagree about whether or not murder is wrong but one cannot disagree about whether or not one exists (THAT'S a self evident truth, has no moral implications though :confused: )
Here's a prime example of morals. You added the Hitler question later; I saw that, and then I distrusted you once I saw it. Now, morally, I don't trust you, because you seem like the type who twists words.
Khaled, am I correct in gathering that you are taking some action to be moral for some agent to perform if it achieves a result desired by that particular agent? If so, could one action be moral for some agent to perform and immoral for another agent to perform, if the result that action achieves is desirable for the former agent and not desirable for the latter?
Reply to Noble Dust I can promise you I wasn't trying to do that consciously I swear. I was using a rhetorical question. Are you seriously going to try to say that there is no room for disagreement on whether or not killing Hitler is moral?
If so, could one action be moral for some agent to perform and immoral for another agent to perform
But that would go against the definition of an objective morality so I believe that at that point you should discard the concept altogether. Morality and relativism don't go together
Reply to Noble Dust ok I think we're both really confused (at least I am) do you mind rebooting this conversation to when you were asking why it's impossible for murder to be objectively wrong? (Check the 2nd page if you really don't trust me that much :cry: )
Reply to Noble Dust because it is simply possible to disagree about whether or not murder is wrong but one cannot disagree about whether or not one exists for example (THAT'S a self evident truth, has no moral implications though :confused: )
I may have mixed up which of you was arguing which point, my apologies. Khaled I might agree that in describing morality in terms of the wants of an agent we lose some sense of what we intend with the word morality. Can you suggest a precise description of morality that avoids this problem?
Reply to Noble Dust I define an objective morality as "An ought that is self evident to all observers" and so anywhere where there might be room for disagreement (and there is room for disagreement in all moral situations) then there can be no moral law for that situation
Then applying the operational definition of morality, “It is moral for an agent to perform an action if that action achieves a result desired by that agent” do we then have “There is no single action that achieves a result desirable by all agents”?
I define an objective morality as "An ought that is self evident to all observers" and so anywhere where there might be room for disagreement (and there is room for disagreement in all moral situations) then there can be no moral law for that situation
Khaled I don’t think that’s a useful notion of morality, as it is clearly false. Do you think that’s what other people mean when they use the word “morality”?
Reply to Noble Dust there are already universal "ises" such as "something exists". It is impossible to disagree there. There could be a universal ought. There is no reason to assume there can't be. I just haven't found one
Khaled I will say that if someone came to you claiming morality to mean exactly the definition you provided, you should have no trouble demonstrating they are wrong.
Reply to Bearden yes. Morality entails objectivity. Ask a religious fundamentalist about morality and they tell you theirs is the only correct one. Ask a law maker about morality and they tell you theirs is the only correct one, etc. Most people mean objective morality when they say morality
Reply to Bearden I'm perfectly fine with the operational definition but trust me most people are not (because most people are religious) since the operational definition implies relativism. Should slavery be legalized? According to the operational definition, maybe, it IS very operational (or at least it could be if implemented properly)
Ah, but I don’t think a Christian would claim precisely the definition of morality you provided. I don’t think they typically believe that their morals are self evident to everyone. They may instead claim a definition like “A moral action is what my God says one ought to do”
In which case demonstrating that their form of morality doesn’t exist would be a matter of demonstrating that their god does not say one ought to do anything. Probably the popular route to take to achieve this would be to argue that their god doesn’t exist and therefore cannot say one ought to do anything. Would you agree with this?
Reply to Bearden no BUT they would ALSO believe that anyone who doesn't believe in their God is wrong ergo they still effectively believe in objective morality
Reply to Noble Dust another situation is abortion. For abortion to be legal or illegal requires we determine the rights of a fetus. Is a fetus a human? There is no easy answer to that, it depends on your definition of human which is arbitrary. You can define human as conceived cell, fetus capable of feeling pain, born child, etc... There is no way to distinguish one of these logically. It is up to the individual and is thus subjective. Morality is not objective because each case we found so far has had some form of disagreement irreconcilable by logic. I have tried to find a purely logical basis for morality but failed.
And even had I succeeded in finding a purely logical basis of morality (Kant apparently did but I haven't read much Kant) there still comes the question of "Ought one to use logic". See, the answer to that question is not a logical yes or no, it is up to the individual still. And there will ultimately be people that choose to answer in the negative and are they wrong? No. On what basis could you possibly make that judgment
Reply to Noble Dust Here is the long not so formal but a bit more formal version
P1: The application of logic requires premises
P2: Any conclusion the application of logic leads to is true if the premises are true
P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise
(ex: in order to refute the premise "all humans are green" one must accept the premise "visual perception is more reliable than this idiot" and the premise "I don't see green humans")
P4: A premise cannot determine it's own truth value or if it can then none have been found so far that do so and are useful
P5: There is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used in an argument
P6: Consequently there is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used to determine the truth value of a premise
C: Every premise is true if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value
C: Every conclusion is valid if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value
Reply to Noble Dust Also just found this if you're looking for something a bit more poetic
In the end there is a why to which no answer is possible. In fact, from why to why, from one step to the next, you get to the end of things. And it is only by travelling from one why to the next, as far as the why that is unanswerable, that man attains the level of the creative principle, facing the infinite, equal to the infinite maybe. So long as he can answer the why he gets lost, he loses his way among things. 'Why this?' I answer, 'because that," and from one explanation to the next I reach the point where no explanation is satisfying, from one explanation to the next I reach zero, the absolute, where truth and falsehood are equivalent, become equal to one another, are identified with one another, cancel each other out in face of the absolute nothing. And so we can understand how all action, all choice, all history is justified, at the end of time, by a final cancelling-out. The why goes beyond everything. Nothing goes beyond the why, not even the nothing, because the nothing is not the explanation; when silence confronts us, the question to which there is no answer rings out in the silence. That ultimate why, that great why is like a light that blots out everything, but a blinding light; nothing more can be made out, there is nothing more to make out.
Eugene Ionesco
Deleted UserOctober 26, 2018 at 15:06#2226340 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to tim wood no point. It's just that you're the first to willingly admit that. I recognize it's not really significant as most people do end up adhering to logic.
Deleted UserOctober 26, 2018 at 20:20#2226860 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Comments (128)
How can this be true if you cannot derive an ought from an is. It seems that the word "moderate" would fit better than rational in this case (moderate as in not extremist on moral issues or indecisive)
Still does not follow. Ex:
Eating 200 kgs of cake is what I want. I ought to eat 200 kgs of cake
Killing humans is what I want (I don't). I ought to kill humans
Quoting tim wood
This is an unproven premise. It's taken to be true. I could take something else to be true
I want to wake up early. I ought to set an alarm.
In this case the whole statement can be rephrased "I must set an alarm in order to fullfill my desire of waking up early"
Children suffer when not vaccinated. Parents should vaccinate their children
In this case "Parents should vaccinate their children in order for them not to suffer" is a valid restatement but that doesn't translate to "parents should vaccinate their children". In the same way "I must set an alarm in order to fullfill my desire of waking up early" doesn't translate to "I ought to set an alarm". It seems to me like this formula hides the problem rather than solves it
I don't know if this example is really good. I'll try to elaborate if I find a better one
The difference is in the desire: "waking up early" vs. "children not suffering". You may desire to wake up at a certain hour for any number of reasons, none of which need to contain a moral aspect; desiring that children not suffer, on the other hand, is more narrow, and is harder to divorce from a moral aspect.
My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children.
Translates to: I should vaccinate my children in order to prevent their suffering
However that does not translate to: I should vaccinate my children
The first should is procedural the second is moral. It is a semantic shift as far as I can see
But here:
Quoting khaled
The first should is moral, and the second is procedural.
Is procedural. It's the same should as in the sentence "I want to eat cake. I should eat cake"
My point is that the only thing this formula can derive is procedural shoulds. It cannot derive the moral should that is meant in the sentence "you cannot derive an ought from an is"
Procedural: You should X because Y requries X
Moral: You should do X because it is morally correct
So in this case it is "I should vaccinate they children to satisfy my want of protecting them" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct"
It's not the same; the desire to eat cake is not the same as the desire for children not to suffer. Your entire conception of the "procedural vs. moral" here precludes the existence of the moral. To want to eat cake is by nature a personal pleasure, since there's no inherent health benefits to eating cake. The only other benefits are marginally social; it's a birthday party, and so, by eating cake, I partake in the social scene, and I feel a part of that scene, and there are moral implications to wanting to be part of the social situation. But if I'm alone and have a desire to eat cake, I can do that, but there's no moral implications. On the other hand, the desire that my children not suffer is patently different, and not "procedural" in the same way. Desiring that my children not suffer is a desire for their own well-being, which introduces the moral. "Wanting to eat cake" is personal, but "not wanting my children to suffer" is transpersonal.
What if "I want to eat kale"?
"My want is the well-being of my children therefore I should vaccinate them"
That still translates to:
"I should vaccinate my children to satisfy my desire of their well being"
What is being cited as the reason for the should here? Procedure. Wish fulfillment. That's all this formula proves. It doesn't prove that any action is moral irrespective of desire
If the desired should is procedural as defined in my last comment then you CAN obtain a should from an is anyways so there is no need for this formulation
"Vaccinations are necessary for parents to protect children"
translates to:
"It is the case that if a parent wants to protect their children they should (procedural) vaccinate them"
"This parent wants to protect their children"
"It is the case that this parent should vaccinate their children"
But why does it always "translate" to the procedural being first? In what way is it first? What does "translate" mean here? Translate literally? Figuratively? If figurative, can you show how a figurative (poetic) use of the word translate is logically sound? What?
"My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children."
And "I should vaccinate my children in order to satisfy my want for them not to suffer"
Are exactly the same same don't you agree?
I do agree; the fault in your argument is that you take one, and then say it translates to the other, while admitting that the use of "translates to" is a tautology.
It's like using x=3 vs 2x=6
My point is that in both cases oughts are getting tied to wants and not to morality
No, if it's a tautology, it's wrong. That's why your argument is wrong.
I want to kill an innocent person(I don't). I ought to kill an innocent person
In this case we can both agree that the ought is procedural right?
I don't care about whether it's viewed by someone or other as procedural, because I know, morally, that it's wrong. See how that works? The "procedural" comes after the moral.
Yes. :joke:
How does any of that relate to the moral? At what point do you, personally, feel comfortable introducing the "moral"? What grounds are sufficient for you to introduce the "moral"?
"Self-evidence" (what is that?) and a moral premise that no one CAN vs. DOES disagree with seem contradictory.
Ex: I am Conscious.
There is no way for this to be false. I can't be having an "illusion" of consciousness for that would require a conscious observer to have the illusion.
And yeah that's the only one I found
Note: I could be lying about my Consciousness and be a zombie but the point is that IF I am truly Conscious, there is no way for me to deny it. Morality has to be something like that, it has to derive from something undeniable for it to he truly objective
Why is Can vs does contradictory?
No, I meant "self-evidence" (your usage) is contradictory with the idea that a moral premise that no one CAN vs. DOES (your usage) disagree with is contradictory.
Sure; how is the moral premise that killing someone is wrong not self-evident?
And why does a moral premise need to be self-evident for you?
I asked "how".
What does "objective" mean for you?
"Self evident to all observers" is an impossible state of affairs.
I don't think it IS self evident in the first place
So demonstrate how that is the case.
Use your imagination.
Or I might not; feel free to respond to my prompt.
Yes.
No, let's stall there. Why is it impossible?
Woah, let's back up; I asked why it's impossible for it to be objective that killing is wrong.
What?...
"Is it morally bad to kill Hitler?"
Is there any room for disagreement on that question?
"If the answer is yes" to what question?
"Something exists"
Is there any room for disagreement on that statement? No. My standard for morality is that high
(The question is "is it moral to kill Hitler")
If there IS room for disagreement then it is not objective and there clearly is room for disagreement
No, that wasn't the question.
I never responded to that question, and as far as I can tell, you added it in later.
"is it moral to kill Hitler"
Here's a prime example of morals. You added the Hitler question later; I saw that, and then I distrusted you once I saw it. Now, morally, I don't trust you, because you seem like the type who twists words.
I'm not going to say anything about that subject because I never engaged in that conversation in this thread, yes.
But that would go against the definition of an objective morality so I believe that at that point you should discard the concept altogether. Morality and relativism don't go together
what's the yes for?
Quoting Noble Dust
Sorry if I over-reacted. I've had many of these debates here, so the skin toughens a little bit.
As to murder, I was asking you why it's impossible for murder to be objectively wrong.
Ok, can you demonstrate those positions? So far, they're just statements.
"show"
"Does something exists". Yes. There is no room for disagreement here that is not logically inconsistent.
My standard for an objective morality is as high as that latter case therefore I don't think an objective morality is possible
I'm confused.
So, by your definition of an objective morality, it does not exist, correct?
No bingo. Your definition defies itself.
Quoting khaled
Can you demonstrate this?
Use one of the situations you've already mentioned.
Killing baby Hitler
Pro: you save millions of lives
Con: you take an innocent life
Which one of these is OBJECTIVELY better? Neither. People debate this all the time
The problem is that you are "God" here. In this thought experiment, you already know about Hitler and how terrible he was.
What does this thought experiment show?
And even had I succeeded in finding a purely logical basis of morality (Kant apparently did but I haven't read much Kant) there still comes the question of "Ought one to use logic". See, the answer to that question is not a logical yes or no, it is up to the individual still. And there will ultimately be people that choose to answer in the negative and are they wrong? No. On what basis could you possibly make that judgment
P1: The application of logic requires premises
P2: Any conclusion the application of logic leads to is true if the premises are true
P3: There is no way for a premise to be determined true or false except relative to another premise
(ex: in order to refute the premise "all humans are green" one must accept the premise "visual perception is more reliable than this idiot" and the premise "I don't see green humans")
P4: A premise cannot determine it's own truth value or if it can then none have been found so far that do so and are useful
P5: There is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used in an argument
P6: Consequently there is an infinite number of potential premises that can be used to determine the truth value of a premise
C: Every premise is true if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value
C: Every conclusion is valid if the right premises are used to determine it's truth value
In the end there is a why to which no answer is possible. In fact, from why to why, from one step to the next, you get to the end of things. And it is only by travelling from one why to the next, as far as the why that is unanswerable, that man attains the level of the creative principle, facing the infinite, equal to the infinite maybe. So long as he can answer the why he gets lost, he loses his way among things. 'Why this?' I answer, 'because that," and from one explanation to the next I reach the point where no explanation is satisfying, from one explanation to the next I reach zero, the absolute, where truth and falsehood are equivalent, become equal to one another, are identified with one another, cancel each other out in face of the absolute nothing. And so we can understand how all action, all choice, all history is justified, at the end of time, by a final cancelling-out. The why goes beyond everything. Nothing goes beyond the why, not even the nothing, because the nothing is not the explanation; when silence confronts us, the question to which there is no answer rings out in the silence. That ultimate why, that great why is like a light that blots out everything, but a blinding light; nothing more can be made out, there is nothing more to make out.
Eugene Ionesco
Who defines "better" and "worse"
Quoting tim wood
I didn't have one. I'm not trying to discuss relativism in this thread unless you insist