Jump to content

Good and Evil


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think is helps to think of objectivity and subjectivity as behaviors we can enhance or diminish. 

This makes no sense.  

Link to post
10 minutes ago, pogi said:

This makes no sense.  

Why not? You understand that you can practice ways to be more objective, correct? 

 

Link to post

 

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I get you are wanting to suggest there's no objective reason to say morality should be considering in light of well being and suffering.  But I don't know what that means.

It means that you have no "objective reason" to suggest, or know,  that your version of morality is the objectively right one. Or that there can objectively be only one version.  There is therefore no objective foundation for morality.

Before you start comparing it to physical health again, can we at least agree on this point?

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why not? You understand that you can practice ways to be more objective, correct? 

 

If that is all you were trying to say, I don't have any objection.  

Link to post
9 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

It means that you have no "objective reason" to suggest, or know,  that your version of morality is objectively right.   It requires a reliance on intuition.  Intuitive knowledge is a form of esoteric knowledge.  There is therefore no objective foundation for morality.

Before you start comparing it to physical health again, can we at least agree on this point?

Of course not.  

 

Link to post
20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course not.  

Ok, then instead of making empty assertions (which is all I have heard for 14 pages), show me the scientifically objective evidence which shows how you came to the conclusion that your version of morality is the only right one.   It shouldn't be this hard!  If it is objective, then any scientist should be able to falsify your results and come to the exact same objective conclusion.  That is what makes it objective, after all.

Edited by pogi
Link to post
10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, then instead of making empty assertions (which is all I have heard for 14 pages), show me the scientifically objective evidence which shows how you came to the conclusion that your version of morality is the only right one.   

huh?  That's not my point.  

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

It shouldn't be this hard!  If it is objective, then any scientist should be able to falsify your results and come to the exact same objective conclusion.  That is what makes it objective, after all.

Your test is fault because your premise is.  

My personal observation of what is moral is subjective, sure.  What is proposed here though is we don't have to rely on our personal subjective determinations of what is moral and what is not.  I know you don't like to hear it, but it's the same thing as physical health.  My own personal notion of what it means to be in good physical health is simply my subjective determination.  That does not mean there is no medical science making measures relying on how to achieve good physical health.  It certainly does not mean there are no particular good rules to follow to stay in good physical health.  It also does not mean there is not a landscape wherein there is a series of peaks and valleys and the causes of falling into the valleys or achieving those peaks is not definable or uncoverable.  

Link to post
42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  That's not my point.  

Your test is fault because your premise is.  

My personal observation of what is moral is subjective, sure.  What is proposed here though is we don't have to rely on our personal subjective determinations of what is moral and what is not.  I know you don't like to hear it, but it's the same thing as physical health.  My own personal notion of what it means to be in good physical health is simply my subjective determination.  That does not mean there is no medical science making measures relying on how to achieve good physical health.  It certainly does not mean there are no particular good rules to follow to stay in good physical health.  It also does not mean there is not a landscape wherein there is a series of peaks and valleys and the causes of falling into the valleys or achieving those peaks is not definable or uncoverable.  

I don't object to the comparison to physical health.  I never have.  There are differences (as I have pointed out), but they are both grounded in subjectivity and philosophy.  The fact that you keep bringing it up shows you don't understand me.  Go back and re-read everything I said.  My point is that health is just as subjective.  Health is whatever we say it is.  It has no objective foundation either.  One version of physical health says that it is the "absence of illness or injury" (probably the oldest and most popular).  That definition encompasses one philosophical approach to health.    Another definition/version states that health is the "state of complete emotional and physical well-being"https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/150999 .  Funny, that sounds familiar.  How is that distinguished from the complete state of morality exactly?    In fact there is absolutely no distinction whatsoever!    N

Naturally, each philosophy builds an objective approach to reach its ultimate goals (which are ultimately philosophical), each with different outcomes.  There is not one objectively right or wrong discipline and approach to health, or one objectively right or wrong version of health, because they are both philosophically (not objectively) grounded.  Medicine doesn't deny this, like you seem to.  They are not afraid to embrace human subjectivity and pursue it in an objective and scientific manner.  Medical philosophy should not be a revelation to you. 

There is nothing objective to tell us what health is.  We can disagree and both be right, when it comes to health.  Health is like morality, in that sense there is nothing to ground it in objectivity.   As I have said, if you want to build a soft applied science around Sam's philosophical views of morality, cool, but don't pretend like other philosophical approaches are objectively wrong.  I don't see how this is not obvious to you.  I also don't see how Sam's morality is ANY different from the 2nd definition of health that I quoted.  It seems rather redundant to say it could be a science.  IT ALREADY IS ONE!!!   But don't pretend like it is a hard science.  It is an applied science (soft science) grounded in philosophy.  

Edited by pogi
Link to post
49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  That's not my point.  

Your test is fault because your premise is.  

My personal observation of what is moral is subjective, sure.  What is proposed here though is we don't have to rely on our personal subjective determinations of what is moral and what is not.  I know you don't like to hear it, but it's the same thing as physical health.  My own personal notion of what it means to be in good physical health is simply my subjective determination.  That does not mean there is no medical science making measures relying on how to achieve good physical health.  It certainly does not mean there are no particular good rules to follow to stay in good physical health.  It also does not mean there is not a landscape wherein there is a series of peaks and valleys and the causes of falling into the valleys or achieving those peaks is not definable or uncoverable.  

I think I am in agreement with a lot of what you think about these principles you are talking with pogi about, and I can see how and why a lot of other people would also agree on these things.  I think maybe the problems you are having with pogi have to do more with communication and identification issues.  All people think in subjective terms, in their own subjective perspective.  I think you agree with me on that point.  The issue then is when to identify something is objective, or viewable in an objective perspective, and I think that usually happens when people can see that a lot of other people agree with them about something. It's like taking a poll.   You think what you think and then if you wonder if other people agree with what you think you start asking around to see if there are any other people who also think what you think about that particular something.  And then if you see that a lot of other people do agree on that point you identify it as something that is an objective fact, since it isn't only subjective, because you are not the only one who can see what you see on that point.

But then as you look around some more you also see that there are some other people who do not see what you see on that particular point. So you think maybe they just haven't been educated well enough about that so then you might try to give them a bit more of an education, or simply tell them to look into it and they will then see that it is an objective fact, based upon the fact that more than one person thinks that about that particular something.

But even then some of those people who did not agree will come back to you and tell you or some other people that they still do not agree on that particular point.  Even after they have investigated that issue for themselves.  And then you find out that it isn't only one particular person that doesn't agree on the so-called objective fact, but there is a whole bunch of people who do not agree on that point.  And they might have even reached an opposite conclusion and claim that what they have found out is (also?) what they call an objective fact.

So there you are with 2 different groups of people with opposite perspectives with each of them claiming or at least thinking the other group doesn't see or agree with objective reality.  And they might call what they see good, or they might call it bad, and all the while each group sincerely believes that their subjective perspectives are in agreement with objective reality.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't object to the comparison to physical health.  I never have.  There are differences (as I have pointed out), but they are both grounded in subjectivity and philosophy.  The fact that you keep bringing it up shows you don't understand me.  Go back and re-read everything I said.  My point is that health is just as subjective.  Health is whatever we say it is.  It has no objective foundation either.  One version of physical health says that it is the "absence of illness or injury" (probably the oldest and most popular).  That definition encompasses one philosophical approach to health.    Another definition/version states that health is the "state of complete emotional and physical well-being"https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/150999 .  Funny, that sounds familiar.  How is that distinguished from the complete state of morality exactly?    In fact there is absolutely no distinction whatsoever!    N

Perhaps, and well sure...there may be overlap between the scientific disciplines concerned with both moral health and physical health.  And what you say here is exactly why I feel less concerned, and even shied away from it in the other thread, about naming the science of morality something objective.  I think it falls right in that realm of objective.  But it feels too you are under the impression that objective means it has to have a goal of perfection or something.  I like the landscape mindset on both topics--medical science is a science and it is objectively practiced, I'd say, even if our particular definition of or goal are definitive.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Naturally, each philosophy builds an objective approach to reach its ultimate goals (which are ultimately philosophical), each with different outcomes.  There is not one objectively right or wrong discipline and approach to health, or one objectively right or wrong version of health, because they are both philosophically (not objectively) grounded.  Medicine doesn't deny this, like you seem to.  They are not afraid to embrace human subjectivity and pursue it in an objective and scientific manner.  Medical philosophy should not be a revelation to you. 

Perhaps another solidly defined point of disagreement.  There need not be one right or wrong, as you say, for objective to be achieved, in my mind.  Indeed, I don't know that any field of science has but "one objective right or wrong".  It appears your notion of objective and subjective implicates every field as hopelessly subjective.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

There is nothing objective to tell us what health is.  We can disagree and both be right, when it comes to health.  Health is like morality, in that sense there is nothing to ground it in objectivity.   As I have said, if you want to build a soft applied science around Sam's philosophical views of morality, cool, but don't pretend like other philosophical approaches are objectively wrong.  I don't see how this is not obvious to you. 

No.  It likely amounts to pulling from various sciences including hard sciences as you are bent on.  And there is nothing soft about medical science, so I'm not sure why you are so quick to make these assumptions.  Additionally we've been over this and I've outlines different fields of science that perhaps overlap a potential science of morality.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I also don't see how Sam's morality is ANY different from the 2nd definition of health that I quoted.  It seems rather redundant to say it could be a science.  IT ALREADY IS ONE!!!   But don't pretend like it is a hard science.  It is an applied science (soft science) grounded in philosophy.  

Not really.  Medical science holds to a goal of physical health--you know that concept you find subjective.  On your reasoning there is nothing objective about Medical science since it can't really easily define physical health and can't really claim to achieve something like physical health the same way for every person.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think I am in agreement with a lot of what you think about these principles you are talking with pogi about, and I can see how and why a lot of other people would also agree on these things.  I think maybe the problems you are having with pogi have to do more with communication and identification issues.  All people think in subjective terms, in their own subjective perspective.  I think you agree with me on that point.  The issue then is when to identify something is objective, or viewable in an objective perspective, and I think that usually happens when people can see that a lot of other people agree with them about something. It's like taking a poll.   You think what you think and then if you wonder if other people agree with what you think you start asking around to see if there are any other people who also think what you think about that particular something.  And then if you see that a lot of other people do agree on that point you identify it as something that is an objective fact, since it isn't only subjective, because you are not the only one who can see what you see on that point.

But then as you look around some more you also see that there are some other people who do not see what you see on that particular point. So you think maybe they just haven't been educated well enough about that so then you might try to give them a bit more of an education, or simply tell them to look into it and they will then see that it is an objective fact, based upon the fact that more than one person thinks that about that particular something.

But even then some of those people who did not agree will come back to you and tell you or some other people that they still do not agree on that particular point.  Even after they have investigated that issue for themselves.  And then you find out that it isn't only one particular person that doesn't agree on the so-called objective fact, but there is a whole bunch of people who do not agree on that point.  And they might have even reached an opposite conclusion and claim that what they have found out is (also?) what they call an objective fact.

So there you are with 2 different groups of people with opposite perspectives with each of them claiming or at least thinking the other group doesn't see or agree with objective reality.  And they might call what they see good, or they might call it bad, and all the while each group sincerely believes that their subjective perspectives are in agreement with objective reality.

Thanks Ahab.  I think what you describe would be the problem if there were no verifiable science behind it.  If its shown scientifically what works and what doesn't, then we can simply follow that as objective reasons to accept the one and reject another.  Of course, also, there is assumed a moral landscape with some number of peaks and even great number of valleys.  The peaks represent well being and the valleys represent suffering.  But not all peaks, nor valleys for htat matter, are equal.  There may be many answers to object moral good on these scene.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 But it feels too you are under the impression that objective means it has to have a goal of perfection or something.  

No, scientific objectivity requires that the description of something (like gravity or energy or "morality") must by objectively arrived at through observation/testing and is falsifiable.  It is not based on community values or subjective intuition.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps another solidly defined point of disagreement.  There need not be one right or wrong, as you say, for objective to be achieved, in my mind. 

A statement must be falsifiable if it to be considered scientifically objective.  For example, "the statement "all swans are white"  is falsifiable.  It is something science can prove to be objectively true or false.  Fact or fiction.   On the other hand, "morality is _____" is not equally falsifiable nor can it be objectively measured, and is therefore not an objective fact.    "Energy = _____" is falsifiable and an objectively true or false statement.   Some disagree with Einstein's equation, but they provide objective evidence for their position.  You have no such evidence for or against your description of morality.   Objectivity doesn't mean that we all have to agree, but it does mean that only one of us can be right.  Scientific objectivity seeks to describe nature as it is.  Our descriptions are either true or false, according to science.    It cannot be objectively true that all swans are white if we discover a black swan, no matter how much you believe the statement is true.   "Morality = _____" is not falsifiable, because it is a matter of opinion, just like "health".  It is therefore not an objective description of anything.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

And there is nothing soft about medical science,

Except the fact that it is an applied science based on different subjective and philosophical goals and approaches/descriptions to health.  And it relies heavily on subjective feedback and measures.

Quote

 

Applied science is the use of existing scientific knowledge to practical goals, like technology or inventions.

Within natural science, disciplines that are basic science develop basic information to explain and perhaps predict phenomena in the natural world. Applied science is the use of scientific processes and knowledge as the means to achieve a particular practical or useful result. This includes a broad range of applied science related fields, including engineering and medicine.

 

Quote

scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are basic or applied

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Not really.  Medical science holds to a goal of physical health-

Which physical health is defined (as I have already demonstrated) in some medical fields as "holistic well being"  That is the goal!  It is the exact same goal! 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

On your reasoning there is nothing objective about Medical science since it can't really easily define physical health and can't really claim to achieve something like physical health the same way for every person.  

 No, medical science uses objectivity to achieve a subjective goal.  Within any given philosophy of health, health is the same for everyone (absence of illness or injury, for example).  We can build objective means to achieve that goal in everyone.  We absolutely can create objective measures to achieve that goal of health.  We just can't pretend like health, in this particular philosophical sense, is objective in any way.  It is a subjective goal achieved through objective means - aka applied science aka soft science. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And there is nothing soft about medical science,

Yeah, tell me another one. Talk to people who have disorders there are no tests for besides elimination and depending on how patients describe their experiences. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks Ahab.  I think what you describe would be the problem if there were no verifiable science behind it.  If its shown scientifically what works and what doesn't, then we can simply follow that as objective reasons to accept the one and reject another. 

By verifiable science I suppose you are referring to what a persons discovers through their own investigation on the subject.  I mentioned that as part of the process of becoming educated about a subject.  And yet even after people do their own studies, their own research, their own investigations, they will still see that they don't agree with some other people who did their own studies and research and investigations, even though there will be some who will agree with them.  So no matter how you slice it or dice it you are going to have some people who will not agree with you while some other people will.  There are always going to be 2 sides and you will fall into one of those camps or the other.  With each side thinking they are right and in agreement with objective reality while the other side isn't, even though that side thinks and says it is.  Science will not solve that.  Science doesn't tell people what to think.  Science is not a corporeal entity that is even capable of thinking or determining the truth about something.  The scientific method of discovery is a tool and everyone who uses it thinks they are using it correctly to find out what is in objective reality.  And yet some don't while they think they do.  It's a whachamacall it, for some, I think... a conundrum.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Of course, also, there is assumed a moral landscape with some number of peaks and even great number of valleys.  The peaks represent well being and the valleys represent suffering.  But not all peaks, nor valleys for htat matter, are equal.  There may be many answers to object moral good on these scene.  

Right.  I think we agree on this, even though we may identify the peaks and valleys differently, subjectively.

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

No, scientific objectivity requires that the description of something (like gravity or energy or "morality") must by objectively arrived at through observation/testing and is falsifiable.  It is not based on community values or subjective intuition.

That, I can agree with.  And yes, the is what is being described as a science of morality.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

A statement must be falsifiable if it to be considered scientifically objective.  For example, "the statement "all swans are white"  is falsifiable.  It is something science can prove to be objectively true or false.  Fact or fiction.   On the other hand, "morality is _____" is not equally falsifiable nor can it be objectively measured, and is therefore not an objective fact.   

Ok.  Look. You are caught up on a distraction again.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

"Energy = _____" is falsifiable and an objectively true or false statement.   Some disagree with Einstein's equation, but they provide objective evidence for their position.  You have no such evidence for or against your description of morality.   Objectivity doesn't mean that we all have to agree, but it does mean that only one of us can be right.  Scientific objectivity seeks to describe nature as it is.  Our descriptions are either true or false, according to science.    It cannot be objectively true that all swans are white if we discover a black swan, no matter how much you believe the statement is true.   "Morality = _____" is not falsifiable, because it is a matter of opinion, just like "health".  It is therefore not an objective description of anything.

Have fun applying that to all of science.  Physical health is______ is not falsifiable therefore any science dealing with physical health is not really science, apparently.   In other words I find your reasoning and premises faulty.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Except the fact that it is an applied science based on different subjective and philosophical goals and approaches/descriptions to health.  And it relies heavily on subjective feedback and measures.

The point is its science.  That's the point under consideration here.  I figured you agreed, you simply weren't willing to say so.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

Which physical health is defined (as I have already demonstrated) in some medical fields as "holistic well being"  That is the goal!  It is the exact same goal! 

And?  We've been through this too.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 No, medical science uses objectivity to achieve a subjective goal.  Within any given philosophy of health, health is the same for everyone (absence of illness or injury, for example).  We can build objective means to achieve that goal in everyone.  We absolutely can create objective measures to achieve that goal of health.  We just can't pretend like health, in this particular philosophical sense, is objective in any way.  It is a subjective goal achieved through objective means - aka applied science aka soft science. 

Now you're getting it, I think.  But we've thought that before only to see you vociferously disagree again.  I think you're just heavily hung up on terms and categorization.  

Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Yeah, tell me another one. Talk to people who have disorders there are no tests for besides elimination and depending on how patients describe their experiences. 

In spite of this concern, Calm, medicine remains in the realm of being a hard science.  

It appears Pogi is moving away from his desire in making it a soft science to calling it an applied science, which fits much better, to his credit.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That, I can agree with.  And yes, the is what is being described as a science of morality.  

I think we have just witnessed a miracle.  We agree on something!  I will celebrate it.  Unfortunately, we disagree that morality is described in that way.   Morality is _____ is not a falsifiable statement.

All swans are white is an objective statement.  It can be falsified.  It is either objectively true or false. 

Morality is ____ in NOT an objective statement.  It cannot be falsified.  It is nether objectively true or false.  It is a matter of opinion. 

The end.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Have fun applying that to all of science.  Physical health is______ is not falsifiable therefore any science dealing with physical health is not really science, apparently.   In other words I find your reasoning and premises faulty.  

I sometimes wonder if you comprehend a word I write or if you are just intentionally misconstruing them.  Soft sciences pursue subjective goals through scientifically objective means.  

Medicine is an applied science, and an art. 

There is no objective answer to what physical health is! 

Health is _____ is not an objective statement.  It can't be objectively falsified one way or the other. Health is whatever our philosophical platform says it is. 

It is an art in that sense! The practitioner uses science to meet his subjective goals of health.

Quote

 

Unlike physics or chemistry, medicine is not a pure science. When we call it an applied science, it implies only principles of pure science are applied in medicine...

...So far we have discussed art of medicine as a human faculty that has to be based on science. Medicine, however, is not an exact science. It is an applied science, and its practice is an art.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/#:~:text=Unlike physics or chemistry%2C medicine,sophisticated tools may be different.

 

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

The point is its science. 

Sam Harris suggest it "potentially" could fall within the realms of science.  I don't disagree if he admits that it is a soft science and that it's goals are not based in objectivity - just like medicine, engineering, mechanics, criminology, technology, etc (all applied sciences).  To suggest that it approaches the pure sciences in objectivity like physics or chemistry, is absurd!

There could be any number of moral goals in such an applied science field like morality.  For example, my ecocentric science of morality would be just as valid as your anthropocentric science of morality.  One is not any more objective then the other. They are both based on subjective and different stated goals - just like we see in medicine and health.   As long as Sam doesn't pretend like his morality is the only scientifically valid version, I am cool with that. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

In spite of this concern, Calm, medicine remains in the realm of being a hard science.  

It appears Pogi is moving away from his desire in making it a soft science to calling it an applied science, which fits much better, to his credit.  

In case you haven’t noticed I have said “soft science aka applied science“.  Many suggest that the applied sciences are soft sciences (not pure).   That is how I have been using the terms this whole time.  You must not be reading my links.

Examples of hard/pure sciences: Chemistry, physics, biology, etc.

Examples of applied/soft sciences:  medicine, psychology, engineering, criminology, etc.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, pogi said:

I couldn't have made it through nursing school, or passed the NCLEX exam if I didn't understand scientific objectivity.  It is drilled into our head, I have to document everything objectively.  My job is to distinguishing between subjective data and objective data. That is what I do. We are constantly being trained on the difference.    

Note that we are talking about whether morality can be objectively established.

11 hours ago, pogi said:

You're wrong.

The only objective thing we can say is that so and so believes that ____ is morally right or wrong.  We can't objectively say that the belief _____ is morally right or wrong.  The belief itself is a subjective judgment. It might be based on objective data like, induced labor increases risk or surgery, but the moral/value  judgment itself of right or wrong is entirely subjective!!!   

Remember this?

Quote

 

Pogi said:

  On 9/16/2020 at 5:16 PM, Meadowchik said:

No, it is not at all what I am doing. Think about what I am saying. They are developing an algorithm to make the world a place where they treat everyone else how they themselves would want to be treated. This is not a fanciful idea full of loopholes. It is an algorithm that, when followed, even becomes self-calibrating. People who do it can, through a feedback loop, can get even better at it. The childn offers everyone a cookie because she likes cookies, but then learns that Grandma does not want a cookie, but fruit. So she gets the fruit for Grandma, because she realises that she would if she liked fruit more than a cookie, she'd want to be given a cookie. The child is using a reasonable method and she is refining it by using it.

Great, you discovered an algorithm to make the world a place where they treat everyone else how they themselves want to be treated. So what?

All you can objectively conclude is that your algorithm is objectively effective at helping people to treat everyone else how they want to be treated.  That is all you can objectively conclude.  My algorithm was objectively effective too.  So what?  You can't objectively conclude that such a thing is morally good or bad.  That requires an objective description of morality, which you haven't provided.  You simply provided the assertion that morality is _____.   

If you answer the question you may start see the problem - What does this have to do with morality?

Edited Wednesday at 05:24 PM by pogi

 

That algorithm is an objective one. It follows reasonably from the premise "I exist and others exist" and it is drawing from it at every turn:

"I exist and others exist, so I offer you a cookie." Existence of self is affirmed by doing something. Existence of others and specifically that person is affirmed by doing it for them.

"I exist and you exist, but you say you prefer fruit, so I offer you fruit." Because you exist and I now know your preference exists, and because I exist and am willing to accommodate your preference, I give you fruit instead. (Introverts don't fret: it can also work like: "I exist and you exist, but you say you prefer to sit silently and not talk, so I will accommodate you" :)  )

This process, when followed, is essentially the actor affirming the observation "I exist and others exist." What we do is subjective, but we have found a way of doing it that is not. 

You say that requires an objective description of morality, but I think you have failed to observe that the process itself, in the aggregate, creates that description. It creates an awareness of behaviors which are consistent with the observation "I exist and others exist" and an awareness of behaviors which are not consistent with "I exists and you exist." That satisfies the definition of morality.

 

 

 

 

Link to post

Revisiting this:

Quote

Pogi said:

  On 9/17/2020 at 7:17 AM, Meadowchik said:

I can believe that it's wrong to induce labor unnecessarily because I read data that shows it increases the chances of surgery and therefore increases the risk of harm. That belief would be scientifically objective.

No, it wouldn't be scientifically objective.   All the objective data tells us is that induced labor increases the risk of surgery.  Period.  Nothing more.  We have no objective data beyond that point.  That is the objective end of the line.  Thou shalt go no further.  Anything beyond that is a subjective judgment about right and wrong.  If the patient's subjective preference is to not be harmed, then she has to weigh the risks.  People view risk differently.  It is a subjective judgment.  Some are much more risk tolerant than others and just want the baby out...NOW!  There is nothing objectively "wrong" about that. 

 

 

 

It is wrong within the framework where unnecessary risk is wrong. If I said "Inducing labor unnecessarily is wrong because butterflies are yellow" or "Inducing labor unnecessarily is wrong because I like to be pregnant" then the decision would not be objective in that framework. A doctor and patient might together decide to induce labor because they can both find a certain level of risk acceptable. So they agree to induce labor because of the generally low risk factors of the pregnancy. That would also be an objective decision in that framework where low risk is acceptable. If, however, it could be immoral if in that agreed-upon framework the doctor decided to induce labor despite emerging factors that elevate the risk of induction. (BTW my mother was induced when she delivered me because the doctor did not want to work on Christmas Day.)

My point was within a given framework, one can make objective decisions. One can then practice more objectivity by using a more objective framework. One might even have an objective framework for morality. 

 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
13 hours ago, pogi said:

I think we have just witnessed a miracle.  We agree on something!  I will celebrate it.  Unfortunately, we disagree that morality is described in that way.   Morality is _____ is not a falsifiable statement.

All swans are white is an objective statement.  It can be falsified.  It is either objectively true or false. 

Morality is ____ in NOT an objective statement.  It cannot be falsified.  It is nether objectively true or false.  It is a matter of opinion. 

The end.

I don't think so.  Morality is well being is objective.  As it is, morality depends on a conscious mind.  A conscious mind is a product of nature.  Thus outside personal opinion it is possible to find answers to right and wrong in regards to morality in nature.  But we've been over this stuff and you are dogmatically asserting your opinion in response.  

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I sometimes wonder if you comprehend a word I write or if you are just intentionally misconstruing them.  Soft sciences pursue subjective goals through scientifically objective means.  

Great.  I apologize if I haven't been all in on this.  I have lost interest and yet keep coming back for some reason (mostly because I get a red spot in the upper right of my screen when I show back up on this site).  No doubt it's caused me to miss or mischaracterize some.  

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Medicine is an applied science, and an art. 

And a hard science, full of all sorts of controlled experiments.  To think there's a distinct line seems silly on some of the disciplines, including medicine.  

13 hours ago, pogi said:

There is no objective answer to what physical health is! 

Tell that to the hard scientists who are seeking cures for disease, developing vaccines, replacing hearts and knees.  

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Health is _____ is not an objective statement.  It can't be objectively falsified one way or the other. Health is whatever our philosophical platform says it is. 

It is an art in that sense! The practitioner uses science to meet his subjective goals of health.

Whatever.  And still it doesn't matter.  soft, hard, applied...it's all categories that aren't as tightly bound as you wish they were.  Medical science is many things, including molecular biology, biochemistry, medical physics, histology, cytology, genetics, pharmacology, neuroscience.

13 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Sam Harris suggest it "potentially" could fall within the realms of science.  I don't disagree if he admits that it is a soft science and that it's goals are not based in objectivity - just like medicine, engineering, mechanics, criminology, technology, etc (all applied sciences).  To suggest that it approaches the pure sciences in objectivity like physics or chemistry, is absurd!

If you say so...Or you are plain wrong in our dogma.  

13 hours ago, pogi said:

There could be any number of moral goals in such an applied science field like morality.  For example, my ecocentric science of morality would be just as valid as your anthropocentric science of morality. 

If you say so.  But I don't see a good argument for that.  

13 hours ago, pogi said:

One is not any more objective then the other. They are both based on subjective and different stated goals - just like we see in medicine and health.   As long as Sam doesn't pretend like his morality is the only scientifically valid version, I am cool with that. 

Ok.  Then we at least agree...Sam's version is a scientific one.  that works.  I don't think there's any better or more useful way to see morality, myself.  Your alternatives aren't very interesting or helpful it seems to me.  

Link to post
46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  As it is, morality depends on a conscious mind.  A conscious mind is a product of nature.  Thus outside personal opinion it is possible to find answers to right and wrong in regards to morality in nature.   

This is so absurd!  Art, and personal opinion depends upon conscious minds too.   Therefore there must be right or wrong answers in regard to art or subjective experience.  Lame logic.  I’m done.  He is asserting that a anything that comes from the mind has objectively right or wrong answers.  Or is he just singling our morality for some unknown and inexplicable reason.  Apparently this is the end to subjectivity as we know it.  
Im done. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

  Great.  I apologize if I haven't been all in on this.  I have lost interest and yet keep coming back for some reason (mostly because I get a red spot in the upper right of my screen when I show back up on this site).  No doubt it's caused me to miss or mischaracterize some.   

No one is forcing you to respond.  

Edited by pogi
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

This is so absurd!  Art, and personal opinion depends upon conscious minds too.   Therefore there must be right or wrong answers in regard to art or subjective experience.  Lame logic.  I’m done.  He is asserting that a anything that comes from the mind has objectively right or wrong answers.  Or is he just singling our morality for some unknown and inexplicable reason.  Apparently this is the end to subjectivity as we know it.  
Im done. 

Cool.  I thought I was done some time back and I came back.

This is my take as a simple summary of my position.  Everyone will base their morality on well being.  If ever they say something is moral, if we can ask why and trace it back, I'd wager its based on well being (inadequately defined sure).  To me it's simply objectively true that humans with their conscious minds are innately determined to pursue well being.  Certainly that does not mean we do it well, or correctly (which is the subjectivity you've been arguing for).  But the pursuit of well being just is as a very part of nature.  So we don't need to argue for the ought we pursue  well being.  We just do.  The question is is well being morality, essentially.  And I say yes.  It inherently is the result of our conscious mind.  All we need to do is take that assumption of ought we pursue it and use our scientific findings to help us.  But, I will repeat again, that is what our sciences do--they all make an assumption, at their base, and go for it.  I do not see anything debating that credibly.  And oddly, we are happy to support science in spite of their assumptions.  But when it comes to morality we do not all because of the history of the philosophical debate on the subject.  It's actually a pretty weird double standard used only in the hope, it seems, to keep the debate alive.  

Link to post
12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

To me it's simply objectively true that humans with their conscious minds are innately determined to pursue well being

This is simply a re-statement of Darwinian Evolution. What a koala or I would call well being may differ, but it is not up to me to agree that I must eat Eucalyptus leaves to stay alive, or find female koalas appealing.  But if I was a koala I had better figure out what adds to my "well being" or the entire species might die out in a few months.

What we call "morality" is crucial to our species, objectively, for the same reasons. Adultery makes for murderous lovers. Abortion, if universally practiced, would exterminate humanity. Crime in general takes people out of the gene pool. Universal lying could make commerce and contracts impossible, and destroy economies, prosperity  and civilization.

Immoral societies simply don't survive, they can be destroyed by UN sanctions, war, etc. Their neighbors don't like being invaded or enslaved for some reason. ;)

Behaviors which allow for more successful reproduction cause the species to prosper in peace and harmony, behaviors which do not, bring about lower reproduction conditions and so hinder the success of the species.

It's all Darwin, and I have no problem with that whatsoever.  Darwin produced some of the mental concepts now taken by scientists as "objective evidence" in the resultant paradigm.

But that has nothing to do with the spiritual paradigm presented by the church in discussing a different question, WHY did God create humanity.  What makes a car run (objective truths) has nothing to do with WHY you need a car in your life.

One is a how question the other is a why question

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...