4 ms·

Morality is a human concept that should serve human ends--individually and socially. This is a completely unsubstantiated assumption. As such, performing expe

Morality is a human concept that should serve human ends--individually and socially. This is a completely unsubstantiated assumption. As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral. This relies on the unjustified assumption that causing suffering of a non-human is not immoral or amoral.

javert 14y ago
Not completely unsubstantiated, but I'm not going to sit here and teach philosophy (mainly because nobody would listen and I wouldn't get paid for doing it). This relies on the unjustified assumption that causing suffering of a non-human is not immoral or amoral. That's like saying "God must exist, until you prove that he doesn't." In other words, on that particular point, you're the one making a positive claim.
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  Not exactly. You have a particular answer to the questions What is morality, and What is moral, and have asserted those answers as true. It is not necessarily the default state of the Universe that some/all actions are immoral, or amoral -- I am contesting your assertion that this action is without moral consequence. Edit: actually, you claimed without justification to know that the action was moral. In general, I am highly suspect of anyone who claims to know with certainty what morality is or isn't, or why it exists (or doesn't). People have been contemplating this for hundreds of years. It is very unlikely that you (or anyone) have discovered a new, empirically verifiable truth about morality. It is more likely that such claims are overconfident and unjustified.
  - javert 14y ago
    I was saying, "presume no moral consequence in a particular case until it's show otherwise," and you're saying "presume moral consequence in a particular case until it's shown otherwise." Or maybe you're saying, "don't presume either way until you have evidence." I think that at the end of the day, that third option is actually the right one. So, rather than saying, "Hey, you're the one making a positive claim," I should have just said, "Actually, here is what is right, and here's why." Of course, the "why" would be limited in scope, because I'd rather direct you to external information that I agree with than write a philosophical treatise in the comments of HN. Anyway, I guess at this point I'm talking about how to talk, which is starting to get "too meta." Forgive me. To move on to something more interesting: In general, I am highly suspect of anyone who claims to know with certainty what morality is or isn't, or why it exists (or doesn't). People have been contemplating this for hundreds of years. It is very unlikely that you (or anyone) have discovered a new, empirically verifiable truth about morality. It is more likely that such claims are overconfident and unjustified. I basically agree with your analysis, here. But, unlikely things actually do happen. In this case, I believe they have. I have some info on my profile that will direct you to more information if you are interested.
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      I'm a little confused because your original statement seems to contradict your preferences here. You originally made a claim to know what morality is (or at least, where it comes from) and what is moral, without indicating your source for this knowledge in any way. And of course, this conversation is predicated on an implied agreement that morality exists, which is not necessarily a given.
      - javert 14y ago
        I don't understand where you see a contradiction, and I'm not sure what you're confused about.
        jessedhillon 14y ago
        Well, a few things. First, don't presume either way until you have evidence. It seems that if you were following this guideline, you would not simply state, As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral. Moreover, I am not sure how you are construing my claim as being positive. You said X is moral, and I said that such a statement depends on a source of knowledge that X is not immoral (that i.e., X is moral, your statement). There is no assertion I am making in there, except by implication, I am saying that facts about morality are like other facts, and need to exist and be demonstrable. You should be able to show them in some fashion. When you say dog experimentation is moral, you need to show the source of your facts. Again I guess I have to rely on your claim to know what and why morality is, because you don't want to explain that. Moreover, given that you seem to have some familiarity with philosophy, I don't understand why you would make such a comment about whether or not one ought to presume this or that without discussing the precautionary principle, which applies directly to the question at hand. The logic of the principle would seem to pose a direct challenge to your idea that one ought not presume either way. I'm sure you've read some books or some arguments which you are relying on here, but I can't take your claim that human morality is X, and that Y is moral, on face value. And I cannot think of anything you could possibly be relying on as your hidden source for these statements which is not also dependent on a set of assumptions.

javert 14y ago

Not completely unsubstantiated, but I'm not going to sit here and teach philosophy (mainly because nobody would listen and I wouldn't get paid for doing it). This relies on the unjustified assumption that causing suffering of a non-human is not immoral or amoral. That's like saying "God must exist, until you prove that he doesn't." In other words, on that particular point, you're the one making a positive claim.

jessedhillon 14y ago
Not exactly. You have a particular answer to the questions What is morality, and What is moral, and have asserted those answers as true. It is not necessarily the default state of the Universe that some/all actions are immoral, or amoral -- I am contesting your assertion that this action is without moral consequence. Edit: actually, you claimed without justification to know that the action was moral. In general, I am highly suspect of anyone who claims to know with certainty what morality is or isn't, or why it exists (or doesn't). People have been contemplating this for hundreds of years. It is very unlikely that you (or anyone) have discovered a new, empirically verifiable truth about morality. It is more likely that such claims are overconfident and unjustified.
- javert 14y ago
  I was saying, "presume no moral consequence in a particular case until it's show otherwise," and you're saying "presume moral consequence in a particular case until it's shown otherwise." Or maybe you're saying, "don't presume either way until you have evidence." I think that at the end of the day, that third option is actually the right one. So, rather than saying, "Hey, you're the one making a positive claim," I should have just said, "Actually, here is what is right, and here's why." Of course, the "why" would be limited in scope, because I'd rather direct you to external information that I agree with than write a philosophical treatise in the comments of HN. Anyway, I guess at this point I'm talking about how to talk, which is starting to get "too meta." Forgive me. To move on to something more interesting: In general, I am highly suspect of anyone who claims to know with certainty what morality is or isn't, or why it exists (or doesn't). People have been contemplating this for hundreds of years. It is very unlikely that you (or anyone) have discovered a new, empirically verifiable truth about morality. It is more likely that such claims are overconfident and unjustified. I basically agree with your analysis, here. But, unlikely things actually do happen. In this case, I believe they have. I have some info on my profile that will direct you to more information if you are interested.
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    I'm a little confused because your original statement seems to contradict your preferences here. You originally made a claim to know what morality is (or at least, where it comes from) and what is moral, without indicating your source for this knowledge in any way. And of course, this conversation is predicated on an implied agreement that morality exists, which is not necessarily a given.
    - javert 14y ago
      I don't understand where you see a contradiction, and I'm not sure what you're confused about.
      - jessedhillon 14y ago
        Well, a few things. First, don't presume either way until you have evidence. It seems that if you were following this guideline, you would not simply state, As such, performing experiments on a dog to gain more knowledge is moral. Moreover, I am not sure how you are construing my claim as being positive. You said X is moral, and I said that such a statement depends on a source of knowledge that X is not immoral (that i.e., X is moral, your statement). There is no assertion I am making in there, except by implication, I am saying that facts about morality are like other facts, and need to exist and be demonstrable. You should be able to show them in some fashion. When you say dog experimentation is moral, you need to show the source of your facts. Again I guess I have to rely on your claim to know what and why morality is, because you don't want to explain that. Moreover, given that you seem to have some familiarity with philosophy, I don't understand why you would make such a comment about whether or not one ought to presume this or that without discussing the precautionary principle, which applies directly to the question at hand. The logic of the principle would seem to pose a direct challenge to your idea that one ought not presume either way. I'm sure you've read some books or some arguments which you are relying on here, but I can't take your claim that human morality is X, and that Y is moral, on face value. And I cannot think of anything you could possibly be relying on as your hidden source for these statements which is not also dependent on a set of assumptions.