24 ms·

> Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective This comes down to philosophical definitions. We are both using the word "objectiv

> Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective This comes down to philosophical definitions. We are both using the word "objective" differently here. In the philosophical world, this is what moral objectivism means: > The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. [1] What you appear to be using objective as here as to mean "it's the physical state of the world, no matter who sees it". And that's true, but it doesn't have inherent moral usefulness as a statement, we have to show that it means something, which is where my argument from determinism leads. > But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism?? The "how" comes from a phrase I've used in other posts, but essentially, moral psychology and psychology generally. Think of it this way: Nothing has inherent moral meaning. Really technically meaning generally, things just are. So does anything have more value than anything else, inherently? Not really. It's an interestingly odd base of equality in fact. So we all still exist and have desires and wants and needs, but none are any more worthy than others. We also have the notable traits of empathy and social desire. There's much more nuance and detail there, but essentially, if I or you as a single individual want to satisfy my desires, my makeup as a creature that cares about others dictates that I balance all of our desires together into what we would generally refer to as "ethics", even if no such objective truth exists. Indeed, if you change what a human is, you change morality itself. [1] http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism...

tsegratis 6y ago
Again, thanks for your clarity > [objectivity] doesn't have inherent moral usefulness Agreed. But I take it as a required pre-cursor, and that was implicit, so you are right to check definitions. I go something like Nihilism: an absence. A zero Objective: a difference beyond zero. A value These are simplifications, but useful to me So "physical state", and "facts not depending on what anyone thinks" both have value -- they are objective realities. Yes some people say physical state and facts are meaningless and so nihilistically ascribe them zero value. But you have not done that I think you are saying the universe definitively exists -- it has value. Morality does not exist (in that it has no predefined value, it is a zero). And from there, you take emergent properties of life, the mind, and psychology, to create a new morality -- one which does have value, but as defined in an emergent property of humanity > even if no such objective truth exists Now I understand you (I think). You are after a different objectivity By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact As far as I understand things, to have any meaning, there must be objectivity -- otherwise everything is an effective zero, and there is no valid way to say any one thing is better than another. For instance to say something is good rather than bad So what you have done... Please correct me... is say there is no morality, but there is humanity, psychology, physics, desires, etc. You are saying these are objective facts people agree on, and from there you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on If so, three comments: 1) Emergent properties and psychology are fascinating, you can build an objectively interesting morality on these. I appreciate your work and your clarity so far. Sorry, your link didn't open for me 2) How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? 3) Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... But would love to hear more and any corrections
- adjkant 6y ago
  > By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact At this point we're talking definitions, yes. IMO this is a subjective morality because it is only valid when you value what humans value - it comes from our perspective. Without looking at it through our perspective and values, it has no meaning. Repeat for every individual human and combine to get that more or less "objective/existant" rule set. > You are saying these are objective facts people agree on Yes, but stronger. Agreement is not needed. I don't personally find use diving into metaphysical brain in vat scenarios, so I choose to philosophically work under that we can observe the universe, and either it's real or its fake and still matters, for similar reasons of "we still exist and feel" invoked before. > you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on Theoretically, but good luck getting that agreement, lol. As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here. > How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? It really depends on what morality you ascribe to. This view for example is highly supportive of consequentialism in my experience, while pretty clearly kills deontology where it stands. Generally I think the end results in full won't be all that different, though I will say, politically in the US, lack of responsibility via determinism makes strong arguments for things like socialist and egalitarian policies. Of course, psychological factors can offset those, which is why things like full equality a la communism get so much pushback. I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details. [1] Our imperfect knowledge will always make this stuff an estimation at best in practicality though. > Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... I've heard enough god arguments that I effectively cut that out of the equation, yes. Similar logic to brain in vat - either its false and we move on, or its true and we can't do anything about it anyways. At the end of the day, there is no god proof that I have seen that justifies a meta-ethical underpinning having to do with god or DCT [2] or the like. Basically, evidence strongly points one direction, and we will never have proof one way or the other, so we do our best, make a choice, and move on. [1] https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignoranc... [2] https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

tsegratis 6y ago

Again, thanks for your clarity > [objectivity] doesn't have inherent moral usefulness Agreed. But I take it as a required pre-cursor, and that was implicit, so you are right to check definitions. I go something like Nihilism: an absence. A zero Objective: a difference beyond zero. A value These are simplifications, but useful to me So "physical state", and "facts not depending on what anyone thinks" both have value -- they are objective realities. Yes some people say physical state and facts are meaningless and so nihilistically ascribe them zero value. But you have not done that I think you are saying the universe definitively exists -- it has value. Morality does not exist (in that it has no predefined value, it is a zero). And from there, you take emergent properties of life, the mind, and psychology, to create a new morality -- one which does have value, but as defined in an emergent property of humanity > even if no such objective truth exists Now I understand you (I think). You are after a different objectivity By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact As far as I understand things, to have any meaning, there must be objectivity -- otherwise everything is an effective zero, and there is no valid way to say any one thing is better than another. For instance to say something is good rather than bad So what you have done... Please correct me... is say there is no morality, but there is humanity, psychology, physics, desires, etc. You are saying these are objective facts people agree on, and from there you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on If so, three comments: 1) Emergent properties and psychology are fascinating, you can build an objectively interesting morality on these. I appreciate your work and your clarity so far. Sorry, your link didn't open for me 2) How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? 3) Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... But would love to hear more and any corrections

adjkant 6y ago
> By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact At this point we're talking definitions, yes. IMO this is a subjective morality because it is only valid when you value what humans value - it comes from our perspective. Without looking at it through our perspective and values, it has no meaning. Repeat for every individual human and combine to get that more or less "objective/existant" rule set. > You are saying these are objective facts people agree on Yes, but stronger. Agreement is not needed. I don't personally find use diving into metaphysical brain in vat scenarios, so I choose to philosophically work under that we can observe the universe, and either it's real or its fake and still matters, for similar reasons of "we still exist and feel" invoked before. > you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on Theoretically, but good luck getting that agreement, lol. As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here. > How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? It really depends on what morality you ascribe to. This view for example is highly supportive of consequentialism in my experience, while pretty clearly kills deontology where it stands. Generally I think the end results in full won't be all that different, though I will say, politically in the US, lack of responsibility via determinism makes strong arguments for things like socialist and egalitarian policies. Of course, psychological factors can offset those, which is why things like full equality a la communism get so much pushback. I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details. [1] Our imperfect knowledge will always make this stuff an estimation at best in practicality though. > Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... I've heard enough god arguments that I effectively cut that out of the equation, yes. Similar logic to brain in vat - either its false and we move on, or its true and we can't do anything about it anyways. At the end of the day, there is no god proof that I have seen that justifies a meta-ethical underpinning having to do with god or DCT [2] or the like. Basically, evidence strongly points one direction, and we will never have proof one way or the other, so we do our best, make a choice, and move on. [1] https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignoranc... [2] https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/