Morality doesn't make sense.

[Kaz1983]

ever watched one of the Saw films

No. Why is that relevant?

The reason why I mentioned those movie, is firstly that they are set in the real world. The other reason why I mentioned them is that they involves a serial killer who takes hostage people and gives them to either kill one fellow hostage or the serial killer will kill all their family and friends.

I'm sure holding 100 people hostage would be possible

Sure, if you have a lot of help. And then, if you have a lot of help, killing just you probably isn't enough to save all the people you are holding hostage. Do you think that, if prisons exist, killing the guards is a good thing?

If the prisoners will NEVER re-offend and are guaranteed to NOT be a danger to society.. then in this scenario; killing the 10 guards is preferable to watching 1000 of the prisoners be killed (don't forget they will never re-offend and are NOT be a danger to society).

Do you think that killing Hitler would have saved all the people his army killed?

This doesn't make any sense, the hypothetical has nothing to do with you being in charge of an army. Btw, the answer would be yes; if Hitler did not exist, nor would his army exist in 1941 and therefore the holocaust would not have happened.

Can a human being gain knowledge of 2 + 2 = 4 without experience tho?

Why not? You think the only way of knowing 100x100=10'000 is by counting?

Whether it be objective or subjective, for a human being to gain knowledge of something you need to of experienced it first.... anyways the ONLY way to verify empirical evidence is through experience.

[teo123]

The reason why I mentioned those movie, is firstly that they are set in the real world.

What does that even mean?

If the prisoners will NEVER re-offend and are guaranteed to NOT be a danger to society

In fact, the vast majority of murderers aren't serial killers. Recidivism for murder is around 3%. And even so, how are prisons supposed to help? Prison is not a place where an insane person becomes sane, a prison is a place from where an insane person returns with even more psychological problems that made them murder in the first place.

the hypothetical has nothing to do with you being in charge of an army

How else would you keep 100s of people hostage? Some people will be armed and will defend themselves against you.

if Hitler did not exist, nor would his army exist in 1941 and therefore the holocaust would not have happened.

Don't you think somebody else would have been in charge of Nazi Germany if Hitler had died young, with similar consequences? Maybe that alternate-reality-Hitler would have been slightly better, but maybe it would have even been slightly worse. Individuals play little role in determining the course of history.

anyways the ONLY way to verify empirical evidence is through experience.

Sure. Which is why I dislike studying things which require hard-to-understand empirical evidence.

[Kaz1983]

In fact, the vast majority of murderers aren't serial killers. Recidivism for murder is around 3%. And even so, how are prisons supposed to help?

Talking about who commits the most murders etc etc, is just pointless.. you're trying to pull me into the weeds with you, I'm not interested cos it's just easier for you to answer the question... would you kill 1 person to save 100? It's a very easy question, it's a simple yes or no question.

Prison is not a place where an insane person becomes sane, a prison is a place from where an insane person returns with even more psychological problems that made them murder in the first place.

Not all prisons are equal, some prisons in Venezuela have living conditions that are horrible and others in Norway are better than the average hotel. I'm sure psychological problems and rates of re-offending would be way higher in Venezuela than Norway.

How else would you keep 100s of people hostage? Some people will be armed and will defend themselves against you.

It's a hypothetical situation and just like the trolley problem, you have two choices - either watching 5 people/in this case 99 people being killed or being responsible for killing 1 person.

Don't you think somebody else would have been in charge of Nazi Germany if Hitler had died young, with similar consequences? Maybe that alternate-reality-Hitler would have been slightly better, but maybe it would have even been slightly worse. Individuals play little role in determining the course of history.

We know the holocaust happened when Hitler was in charge. We don't know if the holocaust would have happened without him. Big difference.

[Kaz1983]

I think that there may be a misunderstanding regarding infinite regresses. An infinite regress is not necessarily a fallacy or a contradiction. There are numerous examples of infinite regresses that are coherent. Some are used in mathematics; for example in recurring mathematical procedures or arguments that generate either infinitely repeating decimals or irrational numbers. Structurally, these recurrences are the same as arguments based on an infinite regress.

Mathematics is true regardless of human thought, it is an object of fact that 2 + 2 = 4 and not up for debate and a infinite regress used in mathematics is incompatible with the infinite regress I am talking about. No, the infinite regress problem that I pointed out, has to do with moral reasoning not mathematics. At the end of the day moral reasoning is based on a supposed assumption that is grounded in a non cognitive brain states which are not threats to morality but virtuous or vicious according to their pleasurable or painful nature. Reasons rolle is to get a structure of what the world is for human beings, it points out how objects and ideas are connected but the issue is this is detached information that's has no significance on its own. To put simply, you're doing is pre-supposing that morality is grounded in objectivity when it is clearly not grounded in objectivity. Morality is grounded on non-cognitive,

... analyze a statement like 'I always lie'. If the statement is true, then it is false. If the statement is false, then it is true, etc. It is not always clear whether an argument contains a statement that is vicious.

A statement that cannot be verified is a meaningless statement, take "God is real" or the "moon is made of cheese" they cannot be proved to be true and because of that cannot be proved false either - it is a meaningless statement. Moral statements are meaningless too, they cannot be verified true and because of this cannot be verified to be false either.

As for the arguments that dispute that infinite regress can be problematic. See, I'm just saying that you should automatically reject the claim that morality is objective because of the existence of infinite regress, but because by pointing out that it is based on a infinite regress and highlights problems with it. Now infinite regress has identified that there can not be any objective values out there, this means that moral reasoning is grounded non-cognitive brain states NOT in anyway objectivity; this contradicts your claim that there are objective values.

Most proposed grounds for morality are not exclusively based on reason; they may be based on revelation (the ten commandments), or they may be causally connected to a religious goal as when Buddhist morality is seen as conducive to attaining nirvana. I don't see a regress, or recursive procedures, in either of these examples.

I'm not talking about forms of morality that are based on revelation and religion. No you have deliberately mis-represented my argument. I am talking morality that is deemed to based on moral reasoning, this is why I feel that you have either decided to deliberately strawman my position or unintentionally strawman my position.

[teo123]

would you kill 1 person to save 100?

I wouldn't. Because, first of all, in any such situation in the real world, you can't know with any certainty you will actually save those 100 people by killing that one person (Would killing Hitler save the victims of the Holocaust? Would killing Raznatovic save the victims of the Vukovar Massacre?). Also, I am quite certain there is a fundamental difference between letting somebody die and killing somebody. The concept of moral obligations, though intuitive to many people, seems incoherent (see the Drowning Child though experiment by Peter Singer). I think morality (at least primarily) tells us what not to do, rather than what we must do.

[Porphyry]

As for the arguments that dispute that infinite regress can be problematic. See, I'm just saying that you should automatically reject the claim that morality is objective because of the existence of infinite regress, but because by pointing out that it is based on a infinite regress and highlights problems with it. Now infinite regress has identified that there can not be any objective values out there, this means that moral reasoning is grounded non-cognitive brain states NOT in anyway objectivity; this contradicts your claim that there are objective values.

Thanks for responding to my post. My view is that 'automatically' rejecting a moral claim because it leads to an infinite regress is not a good basis for such a rejection. I'm suggesting that an infinite regress in itself is not a contradiction simply because it is an infinite regress, which appears to me to be your assertion; I might have misunderstood but that's how I read it at this time. It might be the case that moral claims are invalid, but they are not invalid because of the infinite regress you suggest that they generate, for the reasons I pointed out in my first post.

Ethical principles that are based on causation, to pick on example, such as Buddhism, are not inherently contradictory. Such a system argues that the development of certain spiritual mental states (such as equanimity, kindness, and clarity of mind) are causally dependent upon certain practices and that is why Buddhism developed a recognizable way of life. In this instance, and some others, the ethical system could be criticized by criticizing its causal basis, but the basis is not arbitrary or irrational.

I think the vegan view is similar in that vegans regard the ethic of veganism as a causal basis for certain societal, and individual, changes or transformations.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.

[Lay Vegan]

... analyze a statement like 'I always lie'. If the statement is true, then it is false. If the statement is false, then it is true, etc. It is not always clear whether an argument contains a statement that is vicious.
A statement that cannot be verified is a meaningless statement, take "God is real" or the "moon is made of cheese" they cannot be proved to be true and because of that cannot be proved false either - it is a meaningless statement. Moral statements are meaningless too, they cannot be verified true and because of this cannot be verified to be false either.

Are you a non-cognitivist? I must have missed that. Either way, I think you should re-read these.

Words mean what they mean because of the teleology of language -- the root of "ought" in any discussion is those prescriptive meanings.
The purpose is principally communication, and although understanding arguably plays a crucial role in that (a word that doesn't make sense can not communicate things) it's not always understanding of the *world* -- understanding of a shared fiction can be just as important to people (e.g. religion) and communication of ideas can occur in those domains too. Things do not have to be true, real, or grounded in the physical to be understood and communicated in the sense to which they are relevant to language, the essential limitations would only be something like the laws of thought (without which understanding really isn't possible no matter how much some people may pretend it is).

If you have a problem with is-ought, the moment you use language you have already presupposed a broad category of oughts as to what words ought to mean. And once we determine what morality ought to mean, we can talk about what it is.

“I need to clean my bedroom”

It's an incomplete thought. "In order to X I need to Y" is the correct hypothetical norm.

Stop expressing incomplete thoughts and the world will make much more sense. I feel like I've explained this to you before, or am I having déjà vu?

Given the definition of morality (which can be objectively established/narrowed down through the teleology of language) we can objectively assert claims like "If you want to act morally in X situation you ought to do Y". Again, a hypothetical norm, but not at all at odds with minimal realism.

In regard to morality, words like "good, should, right, and ought" describe progress toward some goal. The key is to define that goal. If morality can be defined as a value system that considers summation of all interests, then actions that do not work to achieve that goal can objectively be assessed as "wrong" or "immoral." Given a clear definition of morality, as brimstone mentioned "If you want to act morally in X situation then you ought to do Y" is a verifiable statement.

[brimstoneSalad]

would you kill 1 person to save 100?

I wouldn't. Because, first of all, in any such situation in the real world, you can't know with any certainty you will actually save those 100 people by killing that one person (Would killing Hitler save the victims of the Holocaust? Would killing Raznatovic save the victims of the Vukovar Massacre?).

Right, also for highly improbable situations like that, the more likely explanation is that you've lost your mind.

E.g. if God tells you to kill somebody, don't kill somebody: report to a psychiatric hospital.

Jigsaw isn't a plausible scenario, the trolley problem is much closer: choices like that probably come down to automation, or doing things like shutting a fire door, or even emergency scenarios like kicking a 200 lb man off a lifeboat so that five young children can be saved in his place (thus, women and children first BECAUSE more lives are saved that way with limited capacity).

There are very real situations where we find that yes it is appropriate to "kill" one to save many, just not in the way Kaz is describing.

Also, I am quite certain there is a fundamental difference between letting somebody die and killing somebody. The concept of moral obligations, though intuitive to many people, seems incoherent (see the Drowning Child though experiment by Peter Singer). I think morality (at least primarily) tells us what not to do, rather than what we must do.

There is an action vs. inaction distinction when it comes to character/blame, but it's more an issue that the action takes effort while the inaction doesn't.

The correct equation would be more like (good outcome/effort) where a large effort reduces the obligation for that good outcome, or (bad outcome*effort) where a large required effort to obtain a bad outcome makes it a worse reflection on character/a larger obligation not to do it.

The thing is that you can't necessarily separate the two outcomes (the one death and the hundred) because they are inherently linked.

There are other differences, though, when the "killing" is very close:

1. Psychological harm to yourself. You likely can't murder somebody with your own hands and easily recover from that.
2. Legal consequences if you're culpable.

These are in effect part of the effort required even though overcoming them occurs after the incident because they are caused by it and would not otherwise exist.

So in the absurd thought experiment of pushing the fat man onto the track to stop the trolley, there is not just the effort of getting up and pushing him, but also the effort of overcoming the psychological harm and the legal consequences which drastically lowers the obligation to push him even if we could know that had a net good effect (which as we discussed, is unlikely given how implausible the scenario is, more likely you're just murdering an extra person).

[Kaz1983]

"If you want to act morally in X situation then you ought to do Y" is a verifiable statement.

That is not an analytic statement (a statement that is true in virtue of itself, i.e."all bachelors unmarried") but two synthetic statements... Analytic vs synthetic, is kind of like the difference between the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. For example statement A, "I want to act morally in X situation" is a separate statement and statement B, "to act morally, I ought do Y" is a separate statement too.

"I want to act morally in X situation"
"to act morally, I ought do Y"

They're two statements, just like your example. Now considering this means that to be meaningful statements, they need to be empirically verifiable but they both cannot be empirically verifiable.

[Lay Vegan]

That is not an analytic statement (a statement that is true in virtue of itself, i.e."all bachelors unmarried") but two synthetic statements... Analytic vs

We're dealing with hypothetical norms here. My point is, IF you have a goal, then there are some normative reasons why you should do certain things. Minimal moral realism is simply showing you the correct answer, like a mathematical equation. Moral statements like murder is evil, slavery is unjust etc." are EITHER true OR false given the teleology of the language and the definition of morality. ALL of these statements are vacuous (as you and other non-cognitivists believe) sans those prescriptive meanings. That is, one cannot assess the correct behavior without understanding the goal.

Another example, take the statement Tom is a heterosexual male. This statement is an empirical claim and can be scientifically verified. It is also either true or false. Tom could be bisexual, pansexual, homosexual, or even asexual but the statement that he is heterosexual is either true or false. Let us assume Tom has a goal to date women. From the frame of reference of his sexuality, it can be objectively asserted that is wrong for Tom to date men, since homosexual practices are not conducive toward his goal to have relations with women. If Tom is a heterosexual male, then he ought to use a dating app for heterosexuals to find love. It's not that hard.

They're two statements, just like your example. Now considering this means that to be meaningful statements, they need to be empirically verifiable but they both cannot be empirically verifiable.

Please be careful not to straw man me. I didn't claim that moral truths have properties that are floating out there in the cosmos to be studied in a laboratory. Logical deduction can be a helpful tool in determining which behaviors align with which moral theory. Whether or not moral truths are robust is a topic I don't feel comfortable arguing for. Regardless, objective statements can be made once such topics are clearly defined.


If you have a problem with robust realism, just make that clear. Instead you appear to be straw-manning moral realism as a whole in a lazy attempt not to engage in ethics.