2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

[Jebus]

This is how I understand this "debate" up to this point. Kindly correct if you feel like I am misrepresenting your position.

Brimstonesalad suggests that the most moral action is the one that provides the greater benefit (total sum of pleasure and suffering).

AMP3083 and BrianBlackwell suggest that the most moral action is whatever the acting agent prefers it to be. They have also asked Brimstonesalad to prove how his position can be proved as objective truth.

My view is that although Brimstonesalad's position can not be proved as being the universal truth of morality, it makes perfect logical sense. As it is easy to understand it could be used by many as a moral guideline, similar to the Golden Rule. I also believe the world would be a much better place if more people tried to live by this principle. Moreover, I think it would be more productive if people pretended that his position were universally written in stone and if debates about morality would instead be about the different perceptions and opinions of what choice produces the greater benefit and why it does so.

I'm struggling to understand how the preference of the acting agent have anything to do with morality. Perhaps it would help me understand if AMP or Brian could give me an example of what they consider a moral action, an immoral action, and then explain why they feel that the moral action is "better" than the immoral action.

I would also like to know if AMP and Brian agree with that the world would be a better place if more people made an effort to always make the choice that causes the highest total benefit?

[BrianBlackwell]

You do not love science. You love the feelings you get from things you think are "sciencey". You do not understand science, and you show complete contempt for it.Your attitude is identical to the likes of Deepak Chopra, who would also say he "loves science". He loves exploiting it and misrepresenting it to his deceptive ends; the same with you.

Well, this is an unfortunate (if not wholly unexpected) turn. Has it come to lashing out already? You're not going to like this, but thrashing against the unavoidably true, perfectly logical, paradigm-smashing argument that I have made is very common, and is rooted in fear. All antagonism is rooted in fear. How long before you simply remove me from the site to avoid having to address the immovable object that has been placed before you? You've already flirted with the idea by implying that what I'm saying "has no place here", hiding behind justifications which are not accurate, as I will address momentarily. If nothing else I've said convinces you that my position is essentially Socratic, your desire to issue me the metaphorical hemlock in order to shut me up should serve well enough.

Please believe me when I say that I'm not interested in stirring up trouble just to be a pain in the ass; and nothing could be more contrary to my nature than to undermine truth or our ability to know it. My arguments have been made logically, but I honestly believe that what I've said has only been 90% understood, and the other 10% has been filled-in by what you think "people like me" are trying to accomplish with this type of argument. What I've said must be addressed before claims of objective morality can even be considered.

And, relative to the above quote, everything that everyone does is done for one reason only -- because they "love the feelings" they get. You are a vegan because it makes you feel good to be what you perceive as "ethical", "good" and possibly "healthy." You love science because it makes you feel knowledgeable, intelligent, logical, secure, and whatever else (just guessing; don't say I'm making assertions... I admit I cannot know your specific feelings, but you can, if you're willing to look at yourself honestly). I submit to you that every human action is inspired by the desire to feel better; to move in the direction of an improved emotional state. Don't believe me? Examine your motives honestly for a single day, and you will be wholly convinced. But this is a matter for another discussion. Yes, science fills me with wonder and awe, and I like that feeling; this is why I love it. I am permitted to love things for my own reasons, am I not?

Your arrogance in asserting your faith that objective reality does not exist is astounding.
Hold yourself to the standards of skepticism you claim for once; admit you just don't know if reality is objective or not instead of claiming on faith that is it not.

Ok, I admit it. I don't know if reality is objective or not. I have never claimed otherwise. What I've said is that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence to even suggest that it is. Does the atheist say God does not exist, or simply that there is no proof that it does? Prove objectivity to me now, and I will concede and be grateful. Show me any example, or logical argument that proves something exists outside of our own experience. We are powerless to do so. What could be more skeptical than what I've presented? Who here is actually making the faith claims? You have made the extraordinary claim of an objective reality, and have nowhere demonstrated why it should be accepted beyond raw, unabashed assumption.

The Socratic method is innately logical, and asks questions to break down arguments. You make assertions and faith based claims about reality not existing; you're doing quite the opposite of engaging in Socratic discourse.

My first post to you did just this! Faith-based claims? Where? Quote me. When did I claim that reality does not exist? I have been very clear about not asserting what "exists" and what does not. I have only stated what we know with certainty, and what we do not. I don't want to be accusatory, but it is what it is -- your replies smack of agenda, as they do not directly correspond with what I've said. You are trying to turn me into your preferred target in an effort to dismiss what I've said with your preferred reply, but it is misplaced.

You claim they're fabricated, but you won't actually address the arguments. You dance around complaining about logic and science instead, saying they're all subjective.

What argument have I not addressed? You have asserted that morality is proved objective via logic, but have not demonstrated the logic. Yes, I have said that logic and science are ultimately subjective, and have given concise arguments to support the claim, which have yet to be refuted. Your essential position is merely an assumption -- that reality "must be" objective. This is the extraordinary claim. You are charged with demonstrating how it is so. My only claim is that it has not been proven, not that reality definitively is not objective.

Science exists not to give us certainty, but to give us some glimpse at what's around us from a view as unbiased as possible. It exists to give us a sense of probability and provisional knowledge.
A level of certainty comparable to that science demonstrates is reasonable; only a level of certainty less than or greater than is what's based on faith. It's the difference in certainty actually held compared to the degree that is reasonable that amounts to faith.

Yikes. When you start talking about what's "reasonable", the conversation has gone off the rails. What happened to all this logic I've been hearing so much about? Define "reasonable" objectively. Clearly, this is a subjective term, though I do not disagree. It is reasonable to hold scientific findings within your personal belief system, but this has nothing to do with objectivity. To claim objectivity, there must be certainty; and as you've stated, science does not grant certainty. Thus, it is faith-based; though surely requiring a lesser degree of faith than believing the story of Noah's ark, for whatever that's worth.

and leads us to a more peaceful and respectful relationship with those who have differing views.

Another arrogantly certain claim about objective reality from somebody who rejects objective reality.
Really? Evidence? Proof?
A relationship goes both ways; if you only believe in your own experiences, then this is nothing more than your subjective delusion.

I'm amazed that you seriously just appealed to some quasi-ethical claim about our influence on others' experiences to justify your anti-ethical anti-real dogma.

So you deny that humility leads us toward relating more peaceably with others in these discussions? My position is one of humility -- I acknowledge what I don't know. Yours is one of arrogance -- that you are supported by objective reality. Who has been more aggressive, more derogatory, more "on the attack"? All I'm saying here is that when we recognize the subjective nature of our beliefs, we are less likely to feel superior and justified in tearing down another person for their equally-subjective beliefs. I apologize for stating this in the absolute; I merely meant to state my intentions, my hopes, and to submit them for consideration.

All you have to do is prove objective reality logically, and we can move on to the objectively-derived ethics that you've suggested. Despite what you seem to think, I have no desire to linger on abstractions any longer than necessary.

Enjoy your weekend!

[NonZeroSum]

. . .thrashing against the unavoidably true, perfectly logical, paradigm-smashing argument that I have made is very common, and is rooted in fear. . . My only claim is that it has not been proven, not that reality definitively is not objective.

Bloddy 'el, it's not fear it's exasperation, just stop dancing round what you don't believe without providing any counter argument and tell us what you do and how it makes up you're moral framework.

Not a universalist, not a consequentialist, not a deontologist, not even sure of moral realism, do you believe in virtue ethics? Does your determinist belief in eternal souls have any divine commands or just an imperative to only do what 'feels natural'? Is it like a nihilist vanguard consciousness that you're waiting for a capable majority to receive? What is it man, what!?

[BrianBlackwell]

Perhaps it would help me understand if AMP or Brian could give me an example of what they consider a moral action... I would also like to know if AMP and Brian agree with that the world would be a better place if more people made an effort to always make the choice that causes the highest total benefit?

Hi Jebus! People do make an effort to always make the choice that causes the highest total benefit, every single time. The problem is how "total benefit" is weighed. Most people grant their own concerns more weight than everyone else's. At first glance, this seems unreasonable, even illogical, but a closer examination reveals that it is the most obviously reasonable position.

I experience my hunger much more intensely than I experience yours. It is a greater factor in a very absolute sense. To understand this, you must acknowledge the subjective nature of our experience of reality. This is why I insist upon this acknowledgement; because all attempts to understand the world are thwarted without it. It is the truth at the heart of all human concerns.

What is the world? To you, the world is your experience -- full stop. Any notions about a world existing independent of you, and the feelings of others, etc., are wholly abstract, and thus only appeal to people willing to build their lives around abstractions. The asshole who would kill you for the last slice of pizza on a desert island does not understand this about himself, but he knows that his hunger is very real and important, and your hunger (and life) is a remote, obscure consideration. From this perspective, the highest total benefit is created by addressing the most present, tangible concern. Animals tend to act in this way as well, because abstractions are not their strong suit.

Now, within a society, there is practical value to observing the abstraction. Humans are capable of it, and life is generally better for most people if it is adopted. But in the absense of a moral imperative, we are dealing with persuading others to bring their subjective beliefs into accord with a prescribed set of subjective beliefs, which is more difficult because the lack of objectivity makes the argument inherently less compelling. Even if people don't understand the underlying philosophical situation, they perceive it intuitively and are thus less compelled.

What is a moral action? That is an individual matter. To an ancient Mayan, a moral action is sacrificing a virgin to their God (just an example, I'm no expert on this history). To us, not so much. Morality, like all systems governing human action, is based on the ever-present desire to seek an improved emotional state. It relates to conscience. When we act in accordance with our conscience, we feel morally justified, and we feel better than if we had chosen the alternative action. Our conscience is born of our beliefs, and our beliefs are based upon our subjective experience (including our emotional responses).

What I personally think is moral is irrelevant to any discussion on morality, but like everyone else, I feel best when acting in accordance with my conscience, so I tend to do so.

[DarlBundren]

Don't mean to derail the conversation, but I too was curious as to how you go about living your every-day life, Brian. Do you, at least, assume that things MAY be real? I may be wrong, but if - a you claim - you're simply being humble, wouldn't it be safe to accept what is more likely to be true? If there is the chance that your friends don't just exist in your head, but are real, conscious people, shouldn't you avoid to stab them? Just to play it safe?

If science is subjective, wouldn't it be safe to accept it anyway? If objective reality turns out to be true, then science is the most reliable, unbiased source of information we've got, if it's not, it's still not worse than your subjective perspective. Either way, science is what you should choose.

[BrianBlackwell]

Bloddy 'el, it's not fear it's exasperation, just stop dancing round what you don't believe without providing any counter argument and tell us what you do and how it makes up you're moral framework.

Hahahaha No doubt, there is an element of exasperation, but I say "fear" because what I'm suggesting threatens to drastically diminish one's emotional security. Believing you know that you live in an objective world governed by understandable laws is a tantilizingly cozy mental space to reside within.

I think my reply to Jebus above will serve to answer your question as well. If not, I will answer anything, but unless you're simply curious about me personally, I don't think explaining my own subjective beliefs will serve the conversation in any meaningful way.

[Jebus]

Most people grant their own concerns more weight than everyone else's.

That's exactly it! The more someone considers others concern over one's own the more moral that person. In the case of animals (and some people), they are amoral and don't fall on the same spectrum.

To an ancient Mayan, a moral action is sacrificing a virgin to their God

Perhaps or perhaps not. If the Mayan carried out this action because he thought it would give him a better chance of going to heaven then that would be selfish and immoral. If however, he thought this action would please the gods leading to greater prosperity for everyone than his action would be moral. Now if we were to have a televised debate with that Mayan about morality we would try to convince him that this action actually causes more harm than good. He would probably disagree while stating the religious reasons. This is what a debate about morality should be. However, this wouldn't touch upon the core of what is morality, i.e. raising the total sum of benefit to all beings.

[NonZeroSum]

I think my reply to Jebus above will serve to answer your question as well. If not, I will answer anything. . .

If you think meta-ethical subjectivism is the closest thing we have to the truth, do you believe in:

A) Moral relativism - "there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are subjects in the world."

B) Moral absolutism - "a moral principle can be relative to an individual, but not relative to circumstances"

or C) Divine command theory - "moral propositions are about what attitudes God holds."

[BrianBlackwell]

Don't mean to derail the conversation, but I too was curious as to how you go about living your every-day life, Brian. Do you, at least, assume that things MAY be real?

Hello Darl. I allow for the possibility of objective reality, of course, but the point is rather moot in my view. For me, there is certainty, and there is everything else. How close something is to the fence doesn't change the fact that it's on the other side.

Now, that being said, I have my beliefs based upon my definition of "reasonable." I have no objection to science moving forward as it has been, and I find it fascinating and useful, but for me it's largely just entertainment. I have no emotional stake in it. If tomorrow they say they were wrong and the sun revolves around the Earth, that'll be fine. It's just a story from my perspective, and I'm not married to any particular version of it.

By the same token, if someone tells me they spoke with Jesus, or teleported across a vast distance, or saw the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, that's fine too. My sense of reality isn't rocked off its axis, because my worldview isn't wrapped up in anything other than my own experience. I have opinions on politics, religion, etc., but it's basically just a game -- I play it as though the world is real, just like everyone else.

[DarlBundren]

I have opinions on politics, religion, etc., but it's basically just a game -- I play it as though the world is real, just like everyone else

But you haven't replied to my second question. If you think that the world might be objectively real and you're not dogmatic about it, wouldn't it be better for you to follow what is more likely to be true? Science, as Brimstone explained, is there for us to avoid being biased - we don't just use it to discover stuff. If it's not all in your head, if you are talking with me right now instead of being just a brain in a vat, shouldn't you try to follow it? Shouldn't you apply the same amount of caution when dealing with logic and morality? Reality might be a game, as you claim, but I assume you don't go around killing people as if you were playing Grand theft auto, right? I also assume that if someone tried to rape a member of your family, you would try to stop them. Wouldn't you?