pogi Posted September 14, 2018 Posted September 14, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: That said, from an epistemological standpoint there is much that we can objectively observe and say about well being. Well-being exists. That we are ignorant of another's well-being and what can be done to increase doesn't matter. To say something is unknown doesn't mean its unknowable. I am not saying that well-being doesn't exist. It does exist - subjectively. Let me try to make this as clear as possible. Well-being is in the eye of the beholder. It is different for each person. It is therefore categorically subjective in nature. If a person has a headache are they objectively in a state of well-being or not? Doesn't it depend on the person and the perceived level of pain? So, lets use a common pain scale that we use in the medical field. On a pain scale of 0 -10, with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain possible, at what level of pain does a person objectively go from a state of well-being to unwell-being? If you cannot give me an objective standard, then there is no objective measure of well-being when it comes to pain. In the medical field, the 0-10 scale is the gold standard that we rely on. If you will notice, it requires the first-person, subjective response. In medicine, pain is what the patient says it is, and NOT what we think it is based on objective measures. Are there objective measures, sometimes, yes. These can can indicate that a person might be in pain, but they are not always reliable. Interpretation of these indicators is always subjective. I have seen hospice patients that I would have guessed were in severe pain but reported mild-moderate pain only. I have seen others who had very little signs of pain/discomfort who reported severe pain. Increased blood pressure, heart-rate, pallor, contraction of muscles, sweating, grimacing, these are all potential signs that a person might be experiencing pain. The problem is, they are signs of lots of other potential factors as well. For people who are non-verbal or cognitively impaired we have to assess pain using objective measures. This posses problems because we can't always understand what exactly is the source or location of pain in non-verbal patients. They can't describe the pain at all. What kind of pain they are experiencing largely guides treatment options. Are they experiencing somatic or visceral pain, acute or chronic, neurogenic or psychogenic, or are they just constipated and having a difficult bowel movement? With non-verbal patients, objective measures are not always reliable. That is why subjective reporting is the GOLD STANDARD in medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317046/ If you can tell me at what objective and measurable level the threshold of well-being is crossed on a scale of 1-10, and how I can objectively determine where on the scale a non-verbal or cognitively impaired patient is at on a scale of 1-10, then I might concede that well-being is objective. For example, is well-being objectively within the range of 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6...? Is everybody in the range of pain from 0-3 in a state of well-being, while everyone in the range of 4-10 is not in a state of well-being? Do you see what I mean? It is different for everybody, and only the first person can state whether they are in a state of well-being or not. What does it mean that a person is in pain at a level 4/10 anyway? Is that an objective or subjective measure? For some people, well-being has nothing to do with a state of health or a state of pain, as I have stated previously if well-being is objectively based on a state of health, how could a terminally ill patient report being in a state of well-being? Some people do not associate well-being in the hedonic sense of pain/pleaure, but rather associate well-being in a sense of self-acceptance, mindfulness, etc. They don't judge pain or health as being good or bad...it just is. They find the judgments of "good" and "bad" to be as be in-congruent with well-being in a state of transcendence. They think of well-being as a state of total non-judgmental acceptance of all experience, pain or no pain, etc.. Are they wrong? Nope. It is subjective. Thanks for the apology, but I don't really hold it against you. I know how difficult it can be to communicate online from both trying to understand what others are saying, and in trying to convey an idea. Edited September 14, 2018 by pogi
mfbukowski Posted September 14, 2018 Posted September 14, 2018 (edited) https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/index.html Edited September 14, 2018 by mfbukowski
pogi Posted September 14, 2018 Posted September 14, 2018 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well if that is correct about what he believes he is just putting out a circular argument. On one hand he says that chemical reactions are different that consciousness in that video quotes Nagel and various other philosophers and yet then he says it's all an illusion because it is just chemicals. If you read Nagel and others that he mentions and that really part of the video they clearly understand that one cannot do what he is doing. Yes we have mistaken perceptions optical illusions Etc. But you still cannot postulate anything beyond our perceptions. If what you are saying is correct he still has the Cartesian problem of our experience corresponding to something outside of our experience. The mere fact that he sees an indifferent universe means that he is not restricting reality to Consciousness alone. Daigle incidentally is an atheist and it's actually written a book in which he says that he hopes that there is no God. He doesn't like the Aesthetics of there being a God but he cannot prove or even State clearly that there is no God. Nagel understands that his atheism is the same thing as a religion. So though Harris quotes Nagel in this video he comes out with the opposite conclusion that Nagel does. It's very odd because he quotes some of the major figures in what I call in general terms pragmatism as if he thinks they are right but then comes to what is called a "physicalist" conclusion. I don't have time right now to link to an article for you but I would suggest you read an article by Thomas Nagel with an odd title. It is called "what is it like to be a bat?", if you are actually interested in getting into the philosophy here. Holding that Consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions misses the entire point. I did an article over at Times and Seasons, thanks to Clark, about this and should be easy enough to find. I just don't have time to put up links. It's my only article over there so you could just search for my name. But just be assured that physicalism or the belief that we are just a bunch of chemicals does not prove there is no God. I have a few mosquito bites right now and I keep wondering where is the itch in the chemicals? Where is that experience? Where is the blue in the sky? The blue or the itch is not in the chemicals it is a part of Consciousness. To describe Consciousness as if it is only the chemicals totally misses the point. The physicalist explanation misses completely what the experience is. If that is really what Harris is saying he's missing the whole argument and that would be very curious. I think Harris admits that some of his ideas are based on presuppositions and common scientific interpretations about the nature of the universe rather than saying, "the universe is this way" (which would lead to the Cartesian problems you noted), he bases his ideas on "what we think we know about the universe." He bases his argument on these scientific presuppositions that are pretty common to how most atheists probably perceive the universe from a scientific perspective. He concludes, while we do not know for sure, this is how we interpret the science. Harris is approaching this more as a neuroscientist rather than a philosopher. He borrows some of his ideas from philosophers, but admits that he doesn't agree with all of their conclusions on consciousness. The only thing that he admitted to agreeing with them on is that consciousness is subjective. These might help you understand his position more if you are interested: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-self-illusion/201205/what-is-the-self-illusion
pogi Posted September 14, 2018 Posted September 14, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/index.html Thanks for the link. Good article! I'm not sure if you had more posted here, but all I see is the link and a lot of space. I think Sam Harris is essentially saying the exact same thing that Anil Seth is saying in the TED talk you linked to in your article. Harris calls it an "illusion" and Seth calls it a "hallucination". But they both agree with Rorty that all we can know about the world out there is found in mental states. Predictions really, or illusions/hallucinations. These neuroscientist take it a step further and say that not only are perceptions of the outside world illusions (not something that we passively perceive, but something that is actively generated by our brain), but that the perception of the "self" itself is the same type of illusion - which happens to align with Buddhist teachings. Edited September 14, 2018 by pogi
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 14, 2018 Posted September 14, 2018 7 hours ago, pogi said: I am not saying that well-being doesn't exist. It does exist - subjectively. Let me try to make this as clear as possible. Well-being is in the eye of the beholder. It is different for each person. It is therefore categorically subjective in nature. OK Quote If a person has a headache are they objectively in a state of well-being or not? Like pain, I don’t think well-being is binary. I would say it scales. Quote Doesn't it depend on the person and the perceived level of pain? So, lets use a common pain scale that we use in the medical field. On a pain scale of 0 -10, with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain possible, at what level of pain does a person objectively go from a state of well-being to unwell-being? Objectively, any incremental unwanted pain lowers well being. Any decrease in unwanted pain increases it. Objectively. Quote In the medical field, the 0-10 scale is the gold standard that we rely on. If you will notice, it requires the first-person, subjective response. In medicine, pain is what the patient says it is, and NOT what we think it is based on objective measures. Are there objective measures, sometimes, yes. These can can indicate that a person might be in pain, but they are not always reliable. Interpretation of these indicators is always subjective. I have seen hospice patients that I would have guessed were in severe pain but reported mild-moderate pain only. I have seen others who had very little signs of pain/discomfort who reported severe pain. Increased blood pressure, heart-rate, pallor, contraction of muscles, sweating, grimacing, these are all potential signs that a person might be experiencing pain. The problem is, they are signs of lots of other potential factors as well. For people who are non-verbal or cognitively impaired we have to assess pain using objective measures. This posses problems because we can't always understand what exactly is the source or location of pain in non-verbal patients. They can't describe the pain at all. What kind of pain they are experiencing largely guides treatment options. Are they experiencing somatic or visceral pain, acute or chronic, neurogenic or psychogenic, or are they just constipated and having a difficult bowel movement? With non-verbal patients, objective measures are not always reliable. That is why subjective reporting is the GOLD STANDARD in medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317046/ Fair enough. Quote If you can tell me at what objective and measurable level the threshold of well-being is crossed Again it’s not binary. Like pain and health, anxiety, misery, happiness, it is experienced in degrees. Quote on a scale of 1-10, and how I can objectively determine where on the scale a non-verbal or cognitively impaired patient is at on a scale of 1-10, then I might concede that well-being is objective. For example, is well-being objectively within the range of 0-1, 0-2, 0-3, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6...? See above. Any increase in unwanted pain decreases well-being. Quote Is everybody in the range of pain from 0-3 in a state of well-being, while everyone in the range of 4-10 is not in a state of well-being? Do you see what I mean? It is different for everybody, and only the first person can state whether they are in a state of well-being or not. What does it mean that a person is in pain at a level 4/10 anyway? Is that an objective or subjective measure? Clearly an objective report of a subjective experience. Quote For some people, well-being has nothing to do with a state of health or a state of pain, as I have stated previously if well-being is objectively based on a state of health, how could a terminally ill patient report being in a state of well-being? I have no doubt that many who face death find peace. I wonder how many of those that face death would accept a free cure that had no negative side effects. I wonder if afterwards they would report an increase in well-being. Additionally, it’s my understanding that people in hospice are made as comfortable as possible. Why is this, if not to increase their well-being? Quote Some people do not associate well-being in the hedonic sense of pain/pleaure, but rather associate well-being in a sense of self-acceptance, mindfulness, etc. They don't judge pain or health as being good or bad...it just is. They find the judgments of "good" and "bad" to be as be in-congruent with well-being in a state of transcendence. They think of well-being as a state of total non-judgmental acceptance of all experience, pain or no pain, etc.. Are they wrong? Nope. It is subjective. More power to them. I’ve never met someone like that but I don’t doubt they exist. I think most of us are like my friend though. Though he has never been over weight and always exercised, he has significant back and joint pain that prevents him from all the outdoor activities he loves. He is depressed about it. It has objectively negatively impacted his well-being. Quote Thanks for the apology, but I don't really hold it against you. I know how difficult it can be to communicate online from both trying to understand what others are saying, and in trying to convey an idea. I’ve really enjoyed the debate. Like I said I’m worse than a novice at philosophy, but it has been fun to stretch myself. Hopefully I haven’t been too annoying!
pogi Posted September 16, 2018 Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) On 9/14/2018 at 5:12 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said: OK Like pain, I don’t think well-being is binary. I would say it scales. Objectively, any incremental unwanted pain lowers well being. Any decrease in unwanted pain increases it. Objectively. Fair enough. Again it’s not binary. Like pain and health, anxiety, misery, happiness, it is experienced in degrees. See above. Any increase in unwanted pain decreases well-being. Clearly an objective report of a subjective experience. I have no doubt that many who face death find peace. I wonder how many of those that face death would accept a free cure that had no negative side effects. I wonder if afterwards they would report an increase in well-being. Additionally, it’s my understanding that people in hospice are made as comfortable as possible. Why is this, if not to increase their well-being? More power to them. I’ve never met someone like that but I don’t doubt they exist. I think most of us are like my friend though. Though he has never been over weight and always exercised, he has significant back and joint pain that prevents him from all the outdoor activities he loves. He is depressed about it. It has objectively negatively impacted his well-being. I’ve really enjoyed the debate. Like I said I’m worse than a novice at philosophy, but it has been fun to stretch myself. Hopefully I haven’t been too annoying! Ok, so well-being is experienced on a continuum. I agree. How does one quantify that objectively? What factors should be included that increase well-being, and what factors should be included that decrease well-being? Define well-being in a way that would be objectively and universally acceptable. There are almost unlimited potential factors that can affect it, so how do you objectively. For example, how does wealth factor in objectively? Is it objectively true that the more wealth you have, the more well-being you have? Is there really an objective line there somewhere? What about food? Does cooking increase well-being, or does having a personal chef increase well-being? How is it not evident that this is all subjective? Some people LOVE to cook and would never hire a person chef if they had the money. Happiness is clearly subjective. Pain is clearly subjective. Suffering is clearly subjective. In your post you say that "unwanted" pain lowers well being. I agree. Does that make it objective or subjective? What is "wanted" or "unwanted" is entirely subjective. You seem to acknowledge in your post that well-being is perceived differently in different cultures, so how can you possibly continue to argue that it is objective? Edited September 16, 2018 by pogi
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 20 hours ago, pogi said: Ok, so well-being is experienced on a continuum. I agree. Awesome! 20 hours ago, pogi said: How does one quantify that objectively? I'm less concerned about quantifying the subjective experience of well being than discussing whether we can objectively talk about increasing and decreasing well-being. How does one quantify health objectively? We can't. Does that mean we can't talk about good health, bad health, things that destroy health and thing that improve health? 20 hours ago, pogi said: What factors should be included that increase well-being, and what factors should be included that decrease well-being? Webster says well-being is defined as "the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous". So I'd say anything that can be shown to increase or decrease any of those things should be included. 20 hours ago, pogi said: Define well-being in a way that would be objectively and universally acceptable. See above. 20 hours ago, pogi said: There are almost unlimited potential factors that can affect it, so how do you objectively. For example, how does wealth factor in objectively? Is it objectively true that the more wealth you have, the more well-being you have? Abject poverty negatively impacts well-being. After that it becomes fuzzy. You know people actually study this stuff: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562413000280. Isn't it weird that scientists study weather wealth increases subjective well-being? How did they get funding? Why are they interested in such a pointless endeavor ;). 20 hours ago, pogi said: Is there really an objective line there somewhere? What about food? Does cooking increase well-being, or does having a personal chef increase well-being? How is it not evident that this is all subjective? Some people LOVE to cook and would never hire a person chef if they had the money. And how much of our time spent on ethics and morality do we talk about whether people prefer a personal chef or cooking their own food? One of the reasons democracies are great for well-being, is that people get to choose those things that they want and look after their own well being. You are getting way lost in the weeds I think! 20 hours ago, pogi said: Happiness is clearly subjective. Pain is clearly subjective. Suffering is clearly subjective. In your post you say that "unwanted" pain lowers well being. I agree. Does that make it objective or subjective? What is "wanted" or "unwanted" is entirely subjective. You seem to acknowledge in your post that well-being is perceived differently in different cultures, so how can you possibly continue to argue that it is objective? I don't argue that well-being is subjective. Clearly from an ontological perspective well-being is entirely subjective. That does not stop us from objectively studying it. We study subjective experience all the time. You have said that you agree unwanted pain lowers well-being. Perfect, from a moral standpoint, we should prefer those actions that tend to lower unwanted pain. How about murder? What can we say about how that impacts the victims well-being? How about gas lighting? What can we say about the practice of attempting to undermine someone's sanity. Does undermining someone's sanity increase or decrease their well-being? How about rape? Does forcibly molesting someone against their will increase or decrease their well-being? How about physically abusing our spouse or children? Does this increase or decrease their well-being? How about robbery? Does forcibly taking another's property increase or decrease their well-being? None of these questions seem novel, or hard to answer. None of them seem subjective to me at all. How about something harder. Abortion. Does abortion increase or decrease the well-being of the fetus? Does forcing a woman to carry a baby against her will increase or decrease her well being? Somethings we have answers to. Somethings we don't. But saying we don't have the answer doesn't mean that answers don't exist. The fact of the matter is that people dedicate their lives to studying well-being. If it was as hopeless as you say why would they do that? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/health-happiness/research-new/positive-health/measurement-of-well-being/
pogi Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Clearly from an ontological perspective well-being is entirely subjective. That does not stop us from objectively studying it. We study subjective experience all the time. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You admit that well-being is ontologically subjective, and that what increases well-being in one person may decrease well-being in another, correct? I am confused then as to what you think universal, objective morality would look like. The fact is, we simply CANNOT objectively study any onotoogically subjective experience independent of the first person's subjective input and pretend to understand anything about the subjective experience. All study of subjective experience REQUIRES all objective observation (heart rate, facial cues, pallor, muscle contraction, heart rate, etc.) be correlated with the ONLY real indicator of what is actually experienced - THE FIRST PERSON'S reported experience. Again, no matter how closely you can correlate the two, you cannot remove the first person experience and pretend to know anything objectively about what the person is actually experiencing subjectively in regards to well-being. We are going in circles here. Maybe it would be more useful to avoid the terms objective and subjective, since we are probably using those terms in different ways. Perhaps it would be more useful if we use the word relative. Wouldn't it be true that morality is relative if well-being is relative? For example, wouldn't you say that the amount of wealth and prosperity that demonstrably increases or decreases overall well-being is relative from person to person and culture to culture? You don't actually believe that increased wealth is indefinitely proportioned with increased well-being, do you? And if anything that decreases wealth of another should be considered immoral, than currency trading, and many, many conventional business practices should be considered immoral since the only way to make money (in many instances) is for someone else to lose money against their wishes. What about cannibalism? Is it moral? Depends on what culture you ask, doesn't it? I could go on and on: Quote Psychologist Jonathan Haidt and colleagues have shown that people make moral judgments even when they cannot provide any justification for them. For example, 80% of the American college students in Haidt’s study said it’s wrong for two adult siblings to have consensual sex with each other even if they use contraception and no one is harmed. And, in a study I ran, 100% of people agreed it would be wrong to sexually fondle an infant even if the infant was not physically harmed or traumatized. Our emotions confirm that such acts are wrong even if our usual justification for that conclusion (harm to the victim) is inapplicable. https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response This leads me to believe that morality is based on what we value emotionally. What we value emotionally is relative to culture, beliefs, and many other factors. If morality was based on reason alone, then those who have severe emotional deficits, but whose faculties of reason are otherwise intact, would still honor morality as a matter of reason. Unfortunately, this is not the case: Quote If morals are emotionally based, then people who lack strong emotions should be blind to the moral domain. This prediction is borne out by psychopaths, who, it turns out, suffer from profound emotional deficits. Psychologist James Blair has shown that psychopaths treat moral rules as mere conventions. This suggests that emotions are necessary for making moral judgments. The judgment that something is morally wrong is an emotional response. https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response The other question is this, how far do you extend this? It seems to me that your definition of morality is entirely anthropocentric. It does not consider any other living creatures but humans. Why should we only consider the well-being of humans when it comes to morality? What makes us superior to any other living creature? If murdering humans is wrong, what about hunting animals, eating meat, owning a pet, etc. Is it moral to swat flies or kill the ants on your drive-way? How many bugs do I kill on my windshield driving my car? Should we outlaw cars based on moral principle? If you argue that it is moral to kill bugs against their will, then you are simply being anthropocentric. Is anthropocentrism or biocentrism the true moral platform to base our judgments on? What does science and reason tell us about that objectively? Quote Finally, the problem with reason, as we have seen, is that it never adds up to value. If I tell you that a wine has a balance between tannin and acid, it doesn’t follow that you will find it delicious. Likewise, reason cannot tell us which facts are morally good. Reason is evaluatively neutral. At best, reason can tell us which of our values are inconsistent, and which actions will lead to fulfillment of our goals. But, given an inconsistency, reason cannot tell us which of our conflicting values to drop, and reason cannot tell us which goals to follow. If my goals come into conflict with your goals, reason tells me that I must either thwart your goals, or give up caring about mine; but reason cannot tell me to favor one choice over the other. https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response Edited September 17, 2018 by pogi
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 53 minutes ago, pogi said: Let me see if I understand you correctly. You admit that well-being is ontologically subjective, and that what increases well-being in one person may decrease well-being in another, correct? I am confused then as to what you think universal, objective morality would look like. The fact is, we simply CANNOT objectively study any onotoogically subjective experience independent of the first person's subjective input and pretend to understand anything about the subjective experience. All study of subjective experience REQUIRES all objective observation (heart rate, facial cues, pallor, muscle contraction, heart rate, etc.) be correlated with the ONLY real indicator of what is actually experienced - THE FIRST PERSON'S reported experience. Again, no matter how closely you can correlate the two, you cannot remove the first person experience and pretend to know anything objectively about what the person is actually experiencing subjectively in regards to well-being. We are going in circles here. Maybe it would be more useful to avoid the terms objective and subjective, since we are probably using those terms in different ways. Perhaps it would be more useful if we use the word relative. Wouldn't it be true that morality is relative if well-being is relative? For example, wouldn't you say that the amount of wealth and prosperity that demonstrably increases or decreases overall well-being is relative from person to person and culture to culture? You don't actually believe that increased wealth is indefinitely proportioned with increased well-being, do you? And if anything that decreases wealth of another should be considered immoral, than currency trading, and many, many conventional business practices should be considered immoral since the only way to make money (in many instances) is for someone else to lose money against their wishes. What about cannibalism? Is it moral? Depends on what culture you ask, doesn't it? I could go on and on: This leads me to believe that morality is based on what we value emotionally. What we value emotionally is relative to culture, beliefs, and many other factors. If morality was based on reason alone, then those who have severe emotional deficits, but whose faculties of reason are otherwise intact, would still honor morality as a matter of reason. Unfortunately, this is not the case: The other question is this, how far do you extend this? It seems to me that your definition of morality is entirely anthropocentric. It does not consider any other living creatures but humans. Why should we only consider the well-being of humans when it comes to morality? What makes us superior to any other living creature? If murdering humans is wrong, what about hunting animals, eating meat, owning a pet, etc. Is it moral to swat flies or kill the ants on your drive-way? How many bugs do I kill on my windshield driving my car? Should we outlaw cars based on moral principle? If you argue that it is moral to kill bugs against their will, then you are simply being anthropocentric. Is anthropocentrism or biocentrism the true moral platform to base our judgments on? What does science and reason tell us about that objectively? I have made an attempt to address the points you have made giving you my answers for the questions you pose. I’d like your answers to the questions posed below before I invest any more time in this discussion. 4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: You have said that you agree unwanted pain lowers well-being. Perfect, from a moral standpoint, we should prefer those actions that tend to lower unwanted pain. How about murder? What can we say about how that impacts the victims well-being? How about gas lighting? What can we say about the practice of attempting to undermine someone's sanity. Does undermining someone's sanity increase or decrease their well-being? How about rape? Does forcibly molesting someone against their will increase or decrease their well-being? How about physically abusing our spouse or children? Does this increase or decrease their well-being? How about robbery? Does forcibly taking another's property increase or decrease their well-being? None of these questions seem novel, or hard to answer. None of them seem subjective to me at all. Edited September 17, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding
pogi Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I have made an attempt to address the points you have made giving you my answers for the questions you pose. I’d like your answers to the questions posed below before I invest any more time in this discussion. Quote How about murder? What can we say about how that impacts the victims well-being? How about gas lighting? What can we say about the practice of attempting to undermine someone's sanity. Does undermining someone's sanity increase or decrease their well-being? How about rape? Does forcibly molesting someone against their will increase or decrease their well-being? How about physically abusing our spouse or children? Does this increase or decrease their well-being? How about robbery? Does forcibly taking another's property increase or decrease their well-being? None of these questions seem novel, or hard to answer. None of them seem subjective to me at all. And I feel like I have made an attempt to address these questions as well. I did so in my last post. Murder - Are you asking from an anthropocentric or biocentric perspective? In other words, are we talking about murdering humans only, or are we talking about murdering cows, chickens, pigs, rats, flies, and ants too? If you are asking from an anthropocentric stand-point - why? What makes it morally wrong to kill humans and morally right to kill ants or fish? What about bacteria and other microorganisms? Where does reason (rather than emotion) tell you to draw the line? Do you see that there is NO reason other than human emotion when it comes to human values and morals? You are asking these question based on the human perspective of emotionally based values, such as human happiness, human prosperity, and human health, are you not? Why should human well-being matter to me at all, other than to satisfy my human emotional values? Can reason make a moral argument for these emotional values? Nope. All reason can do is tell you that these emotional values exist, but reason cannot tell you if they are objectively good or bad - that is a VALUE judgment based on emotionas rather than reason (studies of psychopaths demonstrates this to be true). What reason suggests however, is that these emotional values are not universal, but are relative to some humans and in the animal kingdom. Are human not just another species in the animal kingdom? Animals forcibly rape other animals all the time, are they being immoral, or does morality only apply to humans? If so, why? You see, reason cannot answer these questions. They are emotionally based. Now, can you address my points made in the last post, because I don't see how you have addressed these issues at all. From what I can tell, your argument is that because we can objectively study subjective well-being in humans, then the well-being of other's is a universal objective moral imperative. I just don't see the logic there. Not everyone will agree with your definition of morality - wouldn't that make it relative. Morality certainly isn't universally exhibited that way in nature - wouldn't that make it relative? Edited September 17, 2018 by pogi
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, pogi said: And I feel like I have made an attempt to address these questions as well. I did so in my last post. Okay. I will just point out that by pivoting away from well-being to what you say in your post below, then that you appear to cede that all the things I have listed do in fact decrease (objectively) the well-being of the victim. 4 minutes ago, pogi said: Murder - Are you asking from an anthropocentric or biocentric perspective? In other words, are we talking about murdering humans only, or are we talking about murdering cows, chickens, pigs, rats, flies, and ants too? If you are asking from an anthropocentric stand-point - why? What makes it morally wrong to kill humans and morally right to kill ants or fish? From earlier: On 9/14/2018 at 8:11 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said: I think that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. What's the alternative? Can there be value that has nothing to do with the experience of conscious beings? So doesn't well-being capture all that we can intelligibly value? Animals have varying states of consciousness and self awareness and should be treated accordingly. 4 minutes ago, pogi said: You are asking these question based on the human perspective of emotionally based values, such as human happiness, human prosperity, and human health, are you not? Why should human well-being matter to me at all, other than to satisfy my human emotional values? What can reason tell me about these values at all? I can't speak to you. I personally value my well-being, but if you don't that's fine. I personally have never met an individual that didn't value their well-being. I've met depressed miserable people that were suicidal, but only because their well being was so low. I can't think of a single rational reason not to value my own well-being. Again consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. Well-being then captures all that is good in that domain of value. If you are asking about why should we care about the well-being of other conscious creatures, then I would only say that rationally, logically I would choose to live among others who value my well-being and that of other conscious creatures. I can't think of a better way to optimize my own well-being. 4 minutes ago, pogi said: Are human not just another species in the animal kingdom? Animals forcibly rape other animals all the time, are they being immoral, or does morality only apply to humans? Morality applies to all creatures with the capacity to think, be aware of themselves, and be aware of the impact their own actions have on others. So far that list includes humans. 4 minutes ago, pogi said: If so, why? You see, reason cannot answer these questions. They are emotionally based. I see no appeal to emotion anywhere above. Perhaps you can point that out? Again it appears that you agree that certain events have objective impacts on well being. Unwanted pain decreases well-being. Being killed decreases one's well-being. Being raped decreases one's well-being. Being physically abused decreases one's well-being. 4 minutes ago, pogi said: Now, can you address my points made in the last post, because I don't see how you have addressed these issues at all. From what I can tell, your argument is that because we can objectively study subjective well-being in humans, then the well-being of other's is a universal objective moral imperative. I just don't see the logic there. Not everyone will agree with your definition of morality. Morality certainly isn't universally exhibited that way in nature - wouldn't that make it relative? Sure. I will make every effort.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, pogi said: Let me see if I understand you correctly. You admit that well-being is ontologically subjective, and that what increases well-being in one person may decrease well-being in another, correct? Well-being is experienced as part of consciousness, and is hence subjective. In addition, people are born with different preferences and what works for someone won't work for another. For example, gay vs straight, extrovert vs introvert. At the same time we can say some things universally about well-being, which you also appear to agree with. Unwanted pain decreases well-being. Being killed would decrease anyone's well being. Emotional and physical abuse decrease well being. Lack of access to clean water, and proper nutrition decrease well-being. There are others. I do agree that in other circumstances individual preferences are wide and varied and culturally influenced. Quote I am confused then as to what you think universal, objective morality would look like. The fact is, we simply CANNOT objectively study any onotoogically subjective experience independent of the first person's subjective input and pretend to understand anything about the subjective experience. I agree. Quote All study of subjective experience REQUIRES all objective observation (heart rate, facial cues, pallor, muscle contraction, heart rate, etc.) be correlated with the ONLY real indicator of what is actually experienced - THE FIRST PERSON'S reported experience. I agree. Quote Again, no matter how closely you can correlate the two, you cannot remove the first person experience and pretend to know anything objectively about what the person is actually experiencing subjectively in regards to well-being. I agree. Quote We are going in circles here. Maybe it would be more useful to avoid the terms objective and subjective, since we are probably using those terms in different ways. Perhaps it would be more useful if we use the word relative. Whichever word facilitates conversation. Quote Wouldn't it be true that morality is relative if well-being is relative? For example, wouldn't you say that the amount of wealth and prosperity that demonstrably increases or decreases overall well-being is relative from person to person and culture to culture? Yes. That said, abject poverty decreases well-being compared with the alternative of having adequate access to clean water, nutritious food, and proper shelter. Quote You don't actually believe that increased wealth is indefinitely proportioned with increased well-being, do you? No and I have never claimed otherwise. Quote And if anything that decreases wealth of another should be considered immoral, than currency trading, and many, many conventional business practices should be considered immoral since the only way to make money (in many instances) is for someone else to lose money against their wishes. I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Quote What about cannibalism? Is it moral? Depends on what culture you ask, doesn't it? I could go on and on: No it does not. If murder is involved, cannibalism is immoral. Eating certain human tissue like the brain can cause disease which decreases well-being. That said, I see nothing immoral about eating dead people (with the caveats listed) compared to burning them. Siblings having sex using contraceptives (assuming no coercion or power differential) is not immoral in any way. As for babies, their gonads are fondled every time their diaper is changed. The sexual abuse of children though is another matter and one I view as too long of a tangent to go down unless you really want to. Quote This leads me to believe that morality is based on what we value emotionally. What we value emotionally is relative to culture, beliefs, and many other factors. If morality was based on reason alone, then those who have severe emotional deficits, but whose faculties of reason are otherwise intact, would still honor morality as a matter of reason. Unfortunately, this is not the case: Of course it is. Our well-being is inextricably linked to our emotions. Again some people have difficulty relating to other peoples experiences. Autistic people can't relate to other people's experiences. I completely agree that emotional ability is required to exercise moral judgement. If we can't understand another's well -being (like lesser animals), then we will be morally impaired. Quote The other question is this, how far do you extend this? It seems to me that your definition of morality is entirely anthropocentric. It does not consider any other living creatures but humans. Why should we only consider the well-being of humans when it comes to morality? What makes us superior to any other living creature? If murdering humans is wrong, what about hunting animals, eating meat, owning a pet, etc. Is it moral to swat flies or kill the ants on your drive-way? How many bugs do I kill on my windshield driving my car? Should we outlaw cars based on moral principle? If you argue that it is moral to kill bugs against their will, then you are simply being anthropocentric. Is anthropocentrism or biocentrism the true moral platform to base our judgments on? What does science and reason tell us about that objectively? If you don't feel I've adequately addressed this in my last post, let me know and I will address further. Edited September 17, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding
pogi Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Morality applies to all creatures with the capacity to think, be aware of themselves, and be aware of the impact their own actions have on others. So far that list includes humans. Why, because a human said so? Isn't that anthropocentric? Why should you be able to dictate human values onto animals? That doesn't seem ridiculously humancentric. You are projecting your human values and morals onto other species and kingdoms now without consideration, or even the ability to know how they feel? You seem to agree that the study of all subjective experience requires first person reporting. So, how to you propose to know for sure if animals can subjectively feel empathy? I agree, that objectively it appears as if they are capable. Intuition seems to suggest that they are capable, but can we be certain? How do you propose to objectively list which animals we should be moral to, and which animals don't deserve our consideration? Does morality apply to lions? They seem to possess the ability to have empathy for humans (we can't know for sure obviously as that would require first person feedback), are they being immoral when they kill humans and eat them? 2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Animals have varying states of consciousness and self awareness and should be treated accordingly. What does that even mean? How can you possibly propose a fair and equivalent moral code based on varying states of consciousness that all of the animal kingdom will agree with. Give me specifics. Is it moral to eat fish? Honestly, I want an answer. Chicken? Pigs? Monkeys? Insects seem to show signs of consciousness, what about them? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/insects-are-conscious-claims-major-paper-that-could-show-us-how-our-own-thoughts-began-a7002151.html You see how ridiculous this is all getting? There is no universal moral code that all sentient creatures “should” adhere to. That is nuts. Even science will say that is nuts. I am not going to address every point you made, because that would take too long and I am losing interest. Edited September 17, 2018 by pogi 1
mfbukowski Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 On 9/14/2018 at 4:12 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said: Clearly an objective report of a subjective experience. Lol What is NOT? Somebody has to go read the Gizmo meter and that is a subjective experience. Then they write it down in language and publish it and it becomes an objective experience for others. And for "well-being "to be objective you have to have an objective definition of well-being. Good luck with that. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 38 minutes ago, pogi said: Why, because a human said so? Isn't that anthropocentric? Why should you be able to dictate human values onto animals? That doesn't seem ridiculously humancentric. You are projecting your human values and morals onto other species and kingdoms now without consideration, or even the ability to know how they feel? You seem to agree that the study of all subjective experience requires first person reporting. So, how to you propose to know for sure if animals can subjectively feel empathy? I agree, that objectively it appears as if they are capable. Intuition seems to suggest that they are capable, but can we be certain? How do you propose to objectively list which animals we should be moral to, and which animals don't deserve our consideration? Does morality apply to lions? They seem to possess the ability to have empathy for humans (we can't know for sure obviously as that would require first person feedback), are they being immoral when they kill humans and eat them? What does that even mean? How can you possibly propose a fair and equivalent moral code based on varying states of consciousness that all of the animal kingdom will agree with. Give me specifics. Is it moral to eat fish? Honestly, I want an answer. Chicken? Pigs? Monkeys? Insects seem to show signs of consciousness, what about them? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/insects-are-conscious-claims-major-paper-that-could-show-us-how-our-own-thoughts-began-a7002151.html You see how ridiculous this is all getting? There is no universal moral code that all sentient creatures “should” adhere to. That is nuts. Even science will say that is nuts. I am not going to address every point you made, because that would take too long and I am losing interest. Hume defined the problem over 200 years ago and there have been replies but none which are satisfactory in my opinion The problem is that one cannot deduce what "ought to be" from what "IS "the case. So morality and religion cannot be deduced via logic or math to have anything to do with what IS. Go and ask a scientist what the purpose of life is and you will find out soon enough that the scientific answer is "What?? It has no "purpose! Science deals with facts not what OUGHT TO be!" There have been attempts but it is easy to see the problems with them once you clearly see the problem. This is a quote from wikipedia of what Hume said Quote In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem 1
pogi Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: If you are asking about why should we care about the well-being of other conscious creatures, then I would only say that rationally, logically I would choose to live among others who value my well-being and that of other conscious creatures. I can't think of a better way to optimize my own well-being... I see no appeal to emotion anywhere above. Perhaps you can point that out? How do you not see that as an appeal to emotion? Remember when you said this the following: 5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Of course it is. Our well-being is inextricably linked to our emotions. You completely agreed that "morality is based on what we value emotionally." In other words, morality is inextricably linked (according to you) with well-being, and well-being is inextricably linked with emotion. How is any justification for morality NOT an emotional appeal then? 5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: No it does not. If murder is involved, cannibalism is immoral. Eating certain human tissue like the brain can cause disease which decreases well-being. That said, I see nothing immoral about eating dead people (with the caveats listed) compared to burning them. Siblings having sex using contraceptives (assuming no coercion or power differential) is not immoral in any way. As for babies, their gonads are fondled every time their diaper is changed. The sexual abuse of children though is another matter and one I view as too long of a tangent to go down unless you really want to. What do you mean "no it doesn't?" Are you serious? Of course it matters which culture you ask. Some cultures have historically viewed cannibalism as immoral, while other's have viewed it as moral. How can you say it doesn't matter who you ask? Most people questioned said they did view cannibalism as immoral. Why do you set yourself up as a moral authority over these people and say that it is not immoral, when they believe that it is? To disregard other's personal moral values as inferior to your own seems incredibly self-righteous and ego-centric. Your human created definition of morality has no more moral authority than any other human created definition of morality. IT IS RELATIVE. Who are you to say that consensual sibling sex should NOT be immoral for other's? What gives you this moral authority and sense of moral superiority over all humans on earth? No, your definition of morality doesn't give you this authority. Your definition appeals to your moral values, (which according to you is inextricably linked with well-being, which is inextricably linked with emotion), while theirs appeals to their moral values. It's all emotionally based and all of equal authority (zero). The indifferent universe didn't endow you with moral authority/superiority over other humans...sorry. Edited September 18, 2018 by pogi
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 32 minutes ago, pogi said: In other words, morality is inextricably linked (according to you) with well-being, and well-being is inextricably linked with emotion I honestly have never met someone who didn’t define morality this way. Are you saying for you morality is not linked ultimately linked to well-being? Have you met someone personally that didn’t link morality with well being?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, pogi said: How do you not see that as an appeal to emotion? Remember when you said this the following: You completely agreed that "morality is based on what we value emotionally." In other words, morality is inextricably linked (according to you) with well-being, and well-being is inextricably linked with emotion. How is any justification for morality NOT an emotional appeal then? Are you saying an organism’s drive to maximize its own well being is irrational or illogical? That is the claim that I am refuting. Perhaps it’s a definitional problem? My recollection of what started my involvement in this thread was that the only rational / logical end of atheism is nihilism. My dictionary tells me that entails the rejection of all morals and the acceptance that life is meaningless. I personally don’t see maximizing my own well-being as an irrational thing to do. I could use a little help here. Emotions - happiness, elevation, flow all contribute to well being. So an appeal to maximize well being is an appeal to maximize these emotions (as well as some non emotional things). I don’t disagree with that. Edited September 18, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Lol What is NOT? Somebody has to go read the Gizmo meter and that is a subjective experience. Then they write it down in language and publish it and it becomes an objective experience for others. And for "well-being "to be objective you have to have an objective definition of well-being. Good luck with that. Yes and the definition of life to this day is difficult to pin down. Does that mean we can’t objectively study life?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, pogi said: Why, because a human said so? Isn't that anthropocentric? No. Because morality inherently pits good against bad. To be moral, one must understand both. Quote Why should you be able to dictate human values onto animals? I didn’t see where I did this. Quote That doesn't seem ridiculously humancentric. You are projecting your human values and morals onto other species and kingdoms now without consideration, or even the ability to know how they feel? ? Quote You seem to agree that the study of all subjective experience requires first person reporting. So, how to you propose to know for sure if animals can subjectively feel empathy? I agree, that objectively it appears as if they are capable. Intuition seems to suggest that they are capable, but can we be certain? How do you propose to objectively list which animals we should be moral to, and which animals don't deserve our consideration? We can only act based on the best information we have, updating it as we go along. I think the amount of care needed varies by species but I belief we should treat all animals as ethically as possible (avoiding cruelty and causing needless suffering). With all things there is a balance of goods. Quote Does morality apply to lions? They seem to possess the ability to have empathy for humans (we can't know for sure obviously as that would require first person feedback), are they being immoral when they kill humans and eat them? I have seen no evidence that lions understand the concept of good or bad. So no. Quote What does that even mean? How can you possibly propose a fair and equivalent moral code based on varying states of consciousness that all of the animal kingdom will agree with. Give me specifics. Is it moral to eat fish? Honestly, I want an answer. Chicken? Pigs? Monkeys? Specifics are hard. Any animal that shows signs of self awareness (elephants, chimps, dolphins etc) should be given much greater protection. Quote Insects seem to show signs of consciousness, what about them? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/insects-are-conscious-claims-major-paper-that-could-show-us-how-our-own-thoughts-began-a7002151.html I don’t have a problem here. Are you asking if it’s moral to torment a grass hopper? Probably not. Is tormenting a grasshopper comparable in any way to tormenting a being that is self aware? No. Edited September 18, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 1 hour ago, pogi said: To disregard other's personal moral values as inferior to your own seems incredibly self-righteous and ego-centric. Your human created definition of morality has no more moral authority than any other human created definition of morality. IT IS RELATIVE. Imagine a universe where every individual (human and animal) is in their own personal hell. A state of never ending misery until they die in a long drawn out way. Can I call this bad? If this isn’t bad, what is? What about the world that we live in? What if a radioactive dust started to fall that had no use, but only caused suffering for all conscious creatures, would this be bad? In the words of Sam Harris: ”Once we admit that the extremes of absolute misery and absolute flourishing—whatever these states amount to for each particular being in the end—are different and dependent on facts about the universe, then we have admitted that there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.”
pogi Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I honestly have never met someone who didn’t define morality this way. Are you saying for you morality is not linked ultimately linked to well-being? Have you met someone personally that didn’t link morality with well being? I would suggest that most people you know do not have that definition of morality. 80% of college students agree that having consensual sex with a sibling, using protection, is immoral. You say that it is not immoral. Most college students clearly don't agree with your definition of morality then. Radical Muslims clearly don't agree with your definition either. Most Mormons probably don't either. I could go on and on. So, again, what gives you moral authority?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, pogi said: I would suggest that most people you know do not have that definition of morality. 80% of college students agree that having consensual sex with a sibling, using protection, is immoral. You say that it is not immoral. Most college students clearly don't agree with your definition of morality then. Radical Muslims clearly don't agree with your definition either. Most Mormons probably don't either. I could go on and on. So, again, what gives you moral authority? I am talking about ultimately defining morality in terms of well-being, which I thought was obvious from the quoted reference. And the question still stands. ETA: According to you, morality only exists in the presence of an all powerful being. Correct? And how does this all powerful being define morality, if not in terms of our eternal well being? If you only answer one question, this is the one I’m most interested in. You’ve acted this whole debate as if tying morality to well-being was some sort of novel concept, yet I’ve never had a debate about morality that didn’t ultimately settle around this. Edited September 18, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
mfbukowski Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Yes and the definition of life to this day is difficult to pin down. Does that mean we can’t objectively study life? Yes of course you cant You can study how life works, etc, but not "life" in an abstract sense. What experiments can you do on life itself? Kill things? Edited September 18, 2018 by mfbukowski
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 18, 2018 Posted September 18, 2018 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes of course you cant You can study how life works, etc, but not "life" in an abstract sense. What experiments can you do on life itself? Kill things? So you can study how well-being works, but not well-being in an abstract sense whatever that means. Works for me.
Recommended Posts