4 ms·

>Either moral systems are complete, or they are inconsistent. So you mean "incomplete or inconsistent"? It sounds like this is what you meant. Then I disagree

>Either moral systems are complete, or they are inconsistent. So you mean "incomplete or inconsistent"? It sounds like this is what you meant. Then I disagree. Two examples of a complete and consistent (and computable) moral system: * everything is good * everything is evil

kelseyfrog 2y ago
d'oh. Thank you, You're right. Edited to reflect what I was trying to say.
- ball_of_lint 2y ago
  It's actually still not exactly right - should be "Either moral systems are incomplete, or they are inconsistent". Here's an example of a both incomplete and inconsistent Moral system: - Petting dogs is good - Petting cats is bad - Petting dogs is bad
  - kelseyfrog 2y ago
    I see, what you're getting at. Yes. Thank you. Unfortunately, I'm no longer able to edit. I appreciate your patience, and help understanding the difference.
GeoAtreides 2y ago
Those are not moral systems, they're sentences with undefined meaning. "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe (say, like the fine-structure constant). One could say that's the essential purpose of any moral system: to define what "good" and "bad" mean.
- x-complexity 2y ago
  > Those are not moral systems, they're sentences with undefined meaning. My biggest gripe (& source of hatred) with this reasoning is that you can do this infinitely without any remorse. It's a black hole, wherein all effort becomes wasted because the other side refuses to pin down definitions, and instead goes "nuh uh, not like that" infinitely. But fine then. Here's what I think they're trying to do. Given a universal set encompassing all actions (defined as A): - All actions within A are permitted without question, and are deemed to be unquestionably positive to everyone, without exceptions. OR - All actions within A are forbidden without question, and are deemed to be unquestionably negative to everyone, without exceptions. > One could say that's the essential purpose of any moral system: to define what "good" and "bad" mean. Again, refer back to my utter hatred towards universal moral relativism. > "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe (say, like the fine-structure constant). Side note: Deriving from current physics, the universe deems maximum entropy as a moral imperative, and thus it can be reasoned that the destruction of all matter is morally good from the universe's perspective, including the destruction of all living life. By continuing to expand the universe & increase entropy, the universe has chosen to take such a moral stance. It can thus be concluded that genocide, in accelerating towards maximum entropy, is deemed morally good by the universe. QED.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    > the universe deems maximum entropy as a moral imperative There is no necessary connection between entropy and morality, it is actually you who has put that connection there, hence proving the parent's point that good and evil are in the eye of the beholder; this is your personal view on entropy, not a universal one.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  > "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe. I'd argue the opposite from empirics. The function of a moral framework is to essentialize good and bad so that it appears as an intrinsic property of the universe. All moral frameworks do this. This is going to get both a bit technical and sociological, but taking a page out of Burger and Luckmann, the idea that good and bad are essential universal properties of actions is definitionally reification. I'd add that even if good an bad aren't directly essentialized, they are grounded in properties that are. Moral facts cannot escape the Münchhausen trilemma.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

d'oh. Thank you, You're right. Edited to reflect what I was trying to say.

ball_of_lint 2y ago
It's actually still not exactly right - should be "Either moral systems are incomplete, or they are inconsistent". Here's an example of a both incomplete and inconsistent Moral system: - Petting dogs is good - Petting cats is bad - Petting dogs is bad
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  I see, what you're getting at. Yes. Thank you. Unfortunately, I'm no longer able to edit. I appreciate your patience, and help understanding the difference.

GeoAtreides 2y ago

Those are not moral systems, they're sentences with undefined meaning. "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe (say, like the fine-structure constant). One could say that's the essential purpose of any moral system: to define what "good" and "bad" mean.

x-complexity 2y ago
> Those are not moral systems, they're sentences with undefined meaning. My biggest gripe (& source of hatred) with this reasoning is that you can do this infinitely without any remorse. It's a black hole, wherein all effort becomes wasted because the other side refuses to pin down definitions, and instead goes "nuh uh, not like that" infinitely. But fine then. Here's what I think they're trying to do. Given a universal set encompassing all actions (defined as A): - All actions within A are permitted without question, and are deemed to be unquestionably positive to everyone, without exceptions. OR - All actions within A are forbidden without question, and are deemed to be unquestionably negative to everyone, without exceptions. > One could say that's the essential purpose of any moral system: to define what "good" and "bad" mean. Again, refer back to my utter hatred towards universal moral relativism. > "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe (say, like the fine-structure constant). Side note: Deriving from current physics, the universe deems maximum entropy as a moral imperative, and thus it can be reasoned that the destruction of all matter is morally good from the universe's perspective, including the destruction of all living life. By continuing to expand the universe & increase entropy, the universe has chosen to take such a moral stance. It can thus be concluded that genocide, in accelerating towards maximum entropy, is deemed morally good by the universe. QED.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  > the universe deems maximum entropy as a moral imperative There is no necessary connection between entropy and morality, it is actually you who has put that connection there, hence proving the parent's point that good and evil are in the eye of the beholder; this is your personal view on entropy, not a universal one.
kelseyfrog 2y ago
> "Good" and "bad" need to be defined, they can't exist independently, like some intrinsic property of the universe. I'd argue the opposite from empirics. The function of a moral framework is to essentialize good and bad so that it appears as an intrinsic property of the universe. All moral frameworks do this. This is going to get both a bit technical and sociological, but taking a page out of Burger and Luckmann, the idea that good and bad are essential universal properties of actions is definitionally reification. I'd add that even if good an bad aren't directly essentialized, they are grounded in properties that are. Moral facts cannot escape the Münchhausen trilemma.