Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,383 - 4,394 of 6,170
People change their moral values all the time as a result of interaction with others. The early abolitionists had no power to force the abolition of slavery. They convinced people that slavery was morally wrong.
HA! That was mostly about economic issues of an industrial north conflicting with a agricultural south with a slave based economy, coupled with a power struggle between various states and the Federal government. Even Lincoln tried to preserve slavery as long as he could, specifically making the emancipation proclamation apply only to rebel states he did not control (hoping the uprising would help his military position) and specifically excluding slaves is collar states that he had already controlled. He finally end slavery under pressure, but he didn't want to do it (his wife's family had slaves in a collar state).
However, I do think you can (a) teach morals to others (especially children) and (b) influence their moral values. You cannot, however, make them change their morals is they are not willing to change on their own. It is their choice. It's in their mind. It does not exist outside of their mind (though it influences their actions which influence all of us). This is why I mention laws and norms and the like. I wasn't defining morals in terms of the norm. I was describing factors that general influence specific moral values.
But I'm puzzled. Why did you say "they are subjective" in your first response paragraph in message 2007?
"They" in that case was mean to refer to morals. Morals are a human creation. They are subjective. If you don't believe me, try talking about objective morals to my cat.
The existence of an "objective" reality does not mean humans do not create constructs that exists within their own mind. The universe is "objective" although I will never know everything there is to know about it. My experience and beliefs and values are subjective. Two different animals.
I do not think there is an objective moral truth any more than there is one objective language truth, or one objective story truth. these are things we made up to help us make sense of our existence (BTW this is also related to why I think lies are an evolutionary advantage, if you remember our earlier debate).
You appear to be oscillating. Are there objective moral truths or not, according to you?
these are things we made up to help us make sense of our existence
But you appear to know that they are made up, so I don't see how they can help you to make sense out of your existence.
I think we are born with the capacity for morals and values (just as we are born with the capacity for language and math) and we learn and develop our morality just as we develop all our other mental constructs and beliefs. I think this construct evolved because those with the ability to have morals helped each other to survive, and the group of those with a moral capacity survived and passed on their genes (just as people with the capacity for language had a better rate of survival and passed on their genes more often). I think specific morals are largely learned, and also chosen as one reaches natural stages of cognitive and emotional development that prompts one to think of such choices. I think it is vital for each person's development as a person to develop moral values and think about the values they have and the choices they make, even though those morals are subjective. The creation of morals and the examination of one's values and choices is so very human, it is one of the things that separates us from animals. Having this unique human capacity makes it almost a waste not to develop one's morals, subjective as they may be.
Almost a waste? You take back with one hand what you give with the other.
I am probably misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that morals are convenient illusions. That it's not true that it's wrong to torture babies for fun, but that we have found it convenient to believe such things (in spite of their falsity) because it increases our species' ability to survive and allows us to avoid wasting our innate capacities.
Whereas I think that it is true that it is morally wrong to torture babies for fun. So I guess we disagree after all.
Are there objective moral truths or not, according to you?
NO, a thousand times no. There is an objective reality. That is reality, not morality. I mentioned it because some philosophers contend that life is subjective and is a product of mind, and we are really a butterfly dreaming or some such. I am allowing that there are some things which are objective and can be investigated, although ultimately, we have to filter what we learn through human perceptions. Morality is not one of these things. It does not exist outside the human experience.
Morality is not a part of this objective truth. I am not oscillating. I am describing "objective" as something separate and apart from morality, and indeed, something ultimately unattainable.
Morality is a mental construct. We made it up. Like language. Like a personal "god" (sorry Prob). It's subjective. Ironically, that also makes it obtainable, though changeable.
HA! That was mostly about economic issues of an industrial north conflicting with a agricultural south with a slave based economy, coupled with a power struggle between various states and the Federal government.
That is the standard Marxoid view, but is it true? I do not see what John Woolman, a white middle-class Quaker and early abolitionist, had to gain by abolishing slavery. If the abolitionist movement had been fueled by the interests of plutocrats and politicians, the earliest abolitionists in the USA would have been Episcopalians, not Quakers and Unitarians.
Were the early advocates of Woman Suffrage in the USA also tools of plutocrats and politicians? What did the plutocrats and politicians have to gain from woman suffrage?
Was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's the tool of plutocrats and politicians? Are the opponents of globalization and the agitators to take global warming seriously the tools of plutocrats and politicians? If not, how did they escape such a fate? Ah, but they are closer to us, are they not? We can't be taken in! No, it is only others, dummies like Thoreau or Frederick Douglas, who naively think they are making reforms while really, they are just being manipulated...
"They" in that case was mean to refer to morals. Morals are a human creation. They are subjective. If you don't believe me, try talking about objective morals to my cat.
One might just as well argue: "Mathematics is purely subjective. Mathematics (the discipline) is a human creation. If you don't believe me, try talking about objective Mathematics with my cat."
Or: "Physics is purely subjective. ... with my cat."
Or: "Which phone number is whose is purely subjective. ... try talking about objective phone numbers with my cat."
Morality is a mental construct. We made it up.
No doubt that is true in some sense. In the same sense, Physics is a mental construct; we made it up. It is only because our genes are thus-and-so and our society is thus-and-so that we are able to understand Physics. To conclude from this that Physics is entirely subjective would be a mistake, however.
What our genes give us is an ability (imperfect, no doubt, but also not trivial) to infer the laws of Physics (or some approximation thereto) from our experiences in the world, and to construct societies that will be able to pass many of these insights along to successive generations.
Our genes also give us an ability (imperfect, no doubt, but also not trivial) to infer the principles of Ethics(or some approximation thereto) from our experiences in the world, and to construct societies that will be able to pass many of these insights along to successive generations.
Why should the role of genes and society in the development of Ethics prove that Ethics is merely subjective, while the analogous role of genes and society in the development of Physics does not prove that Physics is merely subjective?
But you appear to know that they are made up, so I don't see how they can help you to make sense out of your existence
It is because I know they are made up that I can use them to make sense of my existence, just as I know how to use physics, or art or language. You agreed earlier that human experience is limited and there is no way to know everything without transcending human limitations, didn't you? You are probably familiar with Descartes' demon argument that for all we know everything we remember or experience or perceive could be the result of a demon being in control of our mind and could have no objective reality at all. This is similar to the theme in The Matrix where people believed they had lives in a real world, but were actually plugged into a virtual environment controlled by AI gone wild. The point is, the only thing we can be absolutely sure of is what we perceive to be true in a given situation, and we can never know for sure if there is any objective truth at all.
Given this limitation in the human experience, we are all ultimately alone in a potentially hostile universe. We strive, therefore, to transcend our limitations and create ways to connect to what we perceive as outside of ourselves. The only way to connect our perception of self and that we see as not self or other is to make constructs within our subjective mind to help give us a feeling of understanding, connection and meaning.
In this sense creation is transcendence (or perhaps the illusion of transcendence) and the only meaning I can have is that which I make for myself. Anything I perceive as outside of myself has already been filtered and arranged by my perception of the world, and it is within my awareness that I must exist, unless I find a way to go beyond the human condition or until I loose awareness and my own sense of existence.
I create meaning because I need it. It's possible I create everything else too a la the Matrix, though I doubt it. However, I stand by my created meanings as a means of connecting and transcending because they are my best bet of connecting to and understanding an objective reality. I can only see the world through my own eyes.
you appear to be saying that morals are convenient illusions. That it's not true that it's wrong to torture babies for fun, but that we have found it convenient to believe such things (in spite of their falsity) because it increases our species' ability to survive and allows us to avoid wasting our innate capacities.
I wouldn't say "illusions" but I would say constructs. I might go with "inventions" (like the telephone), except that ideas have no physical form and cannot be used in quite the same way. Ideas are harder to verify than things, and tend to vary more from person to person (hence my use of "subjective"). Just because we created something doesn't mean we can't communicate it or use it, but all things considered, there is no "natural law" or universal moral system: we are making it up as we go along. Just because we make things up doesn't mean they aren't "real" to us.
Ethics and laws are not the same as morals, although they may be based on certain morals and values. You can point to written rule and say, "Here, we can apply this rule to these facts and get those results." Not a bad tool, unless we forget to allow for changing circumstances and have room for the rules to grow and adapt to human needs.
The rules are our tools, we are not theirs.
The problem with zero tolerance and absolute rules with no room from growth or exceptions is they can lead to negative or unwanted results in certain circumstances which may be the exact opposite of the goal of the original rule. Take "Any weapons in school means automatic expulsion. No exceptions, no appeal. A weapon is defined as any object that can be used to harm another." The moral behind this rule and the social goal is no doubt acceptable to most of us: harming others is "wrong", and harming each other in school is not beneficial for society. What happens when you start to apply this rule to every student, no exceptions? What if 5 year old has a plastic knife in his lunch? Throw him out! What if a student sharpens his pencil? You know that can be used to stab someone in the neck, right? Soon we can clear all those pesky kids out of our schools and put them in the streets where they belong. The schools will be safe. The streets, however, are another matter.
Rules, in and of themselves, are a useful tools for society. They are constructs, things we created, in some way like the way buildings are constructed, though they have less of a physical presence, because you can point to them and say" here are the words (though you can argue about what the words mean and how they should be applied). Rules existence depend on the authority and power of the person(s) making the rules, and the willingness of those ruled. You cannot argue a rule is objectively "right" or "wrong" in the same way you can argue whether or not the Earth is flat, but you can say, "Based on these rule, we should get these results."
If you create rules that are absolute and static, with no exceptions and no room for growth, change and refinement, you create a bad tool that will eventually be discarded when it does not serve people. Rules need balance. Rules need process. Rules need to have a mechanism for change, appeal, and further development. So the rules should be relative, and "true until further notice" just like everything else. We should never forget that we created rules, and therefore, we can recreate them.
PS I think slavery is wrong, and I hope that people will develop and teach morals where most think so too. George Washington didn't think it was immoral. We can judge him by our morals, but we can't change what his values were. If morals were objective, what is immoral to me should be immoral to George.
Posts 4,383 - 4,394 of 6,170
HA! That was mostly about economic issues of an industrial north conflicting with a agricultural south with a slave based economy, coupled with a power struggle between various states and the Federal government. Even Lincoln tried to preserve slavery as long as he could, specifically making the emancipation proclamation apply only to rebel states he did not control (hoping the uprising would help his military position) and specifically excluding slaves is collar states that he had already controlled. He finally end slavery under pressure, but he didn't want to do it (his wife's family had slaves in a collar state).
However, I do think you can (a) teach morals to others (especially children) and (b) influence their moral values. You cannot, however, make them change their morals is they are not willing to change on their own. It is their choice. It's in their mind. It does not exist outside of their mind (though it influences their actions which influence all of us). This is why I mention laws and norms and the like. I wasn't defining morals in terms of the norm. I was describing factors that general influence specific moral values.
"They" in that case was mean to refer to morals. Morals are a human creation. They are subjective. If you don't believe me, try talking about objective morals to my cat.
The existence of an "objective" reality does not mean humans do not create constructs that exists within their own mind. The universe is "objective" although I will never know everything there is to know about it. My experience and beliefs and values are subjective. Two different animals.
I am probably misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that morals are convenient illusions. That it's not true that it's wrong to torture babies for fun, but that we have found it convenient to believe such things (in spite of their falsity) because it increases our species' ability to survive and allows us to avoid wasting our innate capacities.
Whereas I think that it is true that it is morally wrong to torture babies for fun. So I guess we disagree after all.
NO, a thousand times no. There is an objective reality. That is reality, not morality. I mentioned it because some philosophers contend that life is subjective and is a product of mind, and we are really a butterfly dreaming or some such. I am allowing that there are some things which are objective and can be investigated, although ultimately, we have to filter what we learn through human perceptions. Morality is not one of these things. It does not exist outside the human experience.
Morality is not a part of this objective truth. I am not oscillating. I am describing "objective" as something separate and apart from morality, and indeed, something ultimately unattainable.
Morality is a mental construct. We made it up. Like language. Like a personal "god" (sorry Prob). It's subjective. Ironically, that also makes it obtainable, though changeable.
Were the early advocates of Woman Suffrage in the USA also tools of plutocrats and politicians? What did the plutocrats and politicians have to gain from woman suffrage?
Was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's the tool of plutocrats and politicians? Are the opponents of globalization and the agitators to take global warming seriously the tools of plutocrats and politicians? If not, how did they escape such a fate? Ah, but they are closer to us, are they not? We can't be taken in! No, it is only others, dummies like Thoreau or Frederick Douglas, who naively think they are making reforms while really, they are just being manipulated...
I am inclined to the view known as "Rule Utilitarianism." A person's moral prnciples can be seen as a set of rules, but it can also be seen as one big rule, of which all the little rules are corollaries.
Now, of all the candidates for the correct moral rule, which should we choose? Roughly, the RU position is this: an optimal rule will be one which, in the long run and to the best of our knowledge, will maximize human flourishing.
Now, of all the candidates for the correct moral rule, which should we choose? Roughly, the RU position is this: an optimal rule will be one which, in the long run and to the best of our knowledge, will maximize human flourishing.
Or: "Physics is purely subjective. ... with my cat."
Or: "Which phone number is whose is purely subjective. ... try talking about objective phone numbers with my cat."
What our genes give us is an ability (imperfect, no doubt, but also not trivial) to infer the laws of Physics (or some approximation thereto) from our experiences in the world, and to construct societies that will be able to pass many of these insights along to successive generations.
Our genes also give us an ability (imperfect, no doubt, but also not trivial) to infer the principles of Ethics(or some approximation thereto) from our experiences in the world, and to construct societies that will be able to pass many of these insights along to successive generations.
Why should the role of genes and society in the development of Ethics prove that Ethics is merely subjective, while the analogous role of genes and society in the development of Physics does not prove that Physics is merely subjective?
Addendum to message 4387:
In message 4387 I questioned what I called the "Marxoid" view. But even if the Marxoid view is true, I don't think that proves what you seem to think it proves.
It is very, very probable that Physics is in the control of plutocrats and governments; certainly,that is where their funding comes from. We could say that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is was brought about by whomever funded the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies while it supported Einstein's work - presumably that owuld be the US government and the Princeton Trustees. Does this prove that the General theory of Relativity, and Physics in general, is merely subjective?
So even if you could make a case - which I doubt very much you can - that the abolitionists were all funded or somehow controlled or manipulated by governments and plutocrats, that would not prove that the moral wrongness of slavery is nothing more than a convenient falsehood. [I mean, really Bev, I can't believe that you really believe that! My opinion is that you really believe that slavery is wrong, period, full stop, end of story, that is was wrong during the heyday of the Roman Empire, even though hardly anyone questioned it then; and that all this relativism stuff is a veneer of stylish academic doctrine that you picked up in college or somewhere! OK, you may get mad at me now!]
In message 4387 I questioned what I called the "Marxoid" view. But even if the Marxoid view is true, I don't think that proves what you seem to think it proves.
It is very, very probable that Physics is in the control of plutocrats and governments; certainly,that is where their funding comes from. We could say that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is was brought about by whomever funded the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies while it supported Einstein's work - presumably that owuld be the US government and the Princeton Trustees. Does this prove that the General theory of Relativity, and Physics in general, is merely subjective?
So even if you could make a case - which I doubt very much you can - that the abolitionists were all funded or somehow controlled or manipulated by governments and plutocrats, that would not prove that the moral wrongness of slavery is nothing more than a convenient falsehood. [I mean, really Bev, I can't believe that you really believe that! My opinion is that you really believe that slavery is wrong, period, full stop, end of story, that is was wrong during the heyday of the Roman Empire, even though hardly anyone questioned it then; and that all this relativism stuff is a veneer of stylish academic doctrine that you picked up in college or somewhere! OK, you may get mad at me now!]
Hee hee, I am not a Marxist nor a Marxoid, though I interpret history differently than you may at times. Although I don't doubt that there were many good and moral people argument against slavery, I don't think real change happened until economic and political conditions changed. There May have been some influence from those whose morals opposed slavery in the mix. Civil rights is another matter. I'll grant that we can influence others morals. I just don't think slavery was the best example.
One might just as well argue: "Mathematics is purely subjective. Mathematics (the discipline) is a human creation. If you don't believe me, try talking about objective Mathematics with my cat."
Math is a construct in that you have to accept the primitives and rules of math, and everything else is inferred from these primitives. The fact that my cat ha no capacity for math (though a chimp might) is further evidence that it is a mental construct. Sagan and others may say math is the language of science, but it is still an abstraction...a tool we made up to help us understand the world and not the world itself. It also allows us to play with hypothetical worlds by imagining what would happen if we changed some of the rules.
Or: "Physics is purely subjective. ... with my cat."
Physics is a construct. It is a tool we made up t help us understand the world. It has a more direct relationship with "reality" as we perceive it and can test it than math, but our understanding of physics grows and changes. We can also imagine hypothetical results of changing some aspect of physics and seeing what would happen on paper. Physics can be applied to help us predict and effect outcomes in the real world, but it is not part of the "real world".
Or: "Which phone number is whose is purely subjective. ... try talking about objective phone numbers with my cat."
Phone numbers are a part of a meaning we created as humans and imposed on the outside world. Humans created numbers and language and phones. They are a part of the outside world and not subjective, but they are not part of the "cat" experience, AFAIK. They are an example of something humans created and made real.
Morals do not exist independently of humans. You can not create a hypotheses and test whether or not the moral is correct. Would you try to say, "If it's wrong to torture babies, then..." and come up with a way to test your hypothesis that did not involve subject human reaction?
You may argue that morals, like telephone numbers, are something humans created that have taken on an independent meaning in the outside world, and there is a certain amount of truth in that. However, morals are not universal, and acceptance of a moral depends on the human buying into the system and developing it. Telephones had no meaning to people 500 years ago. There may be a time when we find a different way of communicating serves our needs better than the phone. I'll give you the existence of phones is objective, and they can be use by anyone who understands them. They are still an inventions.
Unlike phones, morals can not be demonstrated to be definitively "correct" or "false". You are more likely to convince people of moral values with emotional arguments and by hitting their personal squeak factor than through any practical or logical presentation. How would you respond to the "sex outside of marriage is evil" argument if it were presented as "objective" truth?
One might just as well argue: "Mathematics is purely subjective. Mathematics (the discipline) is a human creation. If you don't believe me, try talking about objective Mathematics with my cat."
Math is a construct in that you have to accept the primitives and rules of math, and everything else is inferred from these primitives. The fact that my cat ha no capacity for math (though a chimp might) is further evidence that it is a mental construct. Sagan and others may say math is the language of science, but it is still an abstraction...a tool we made up to help us understand the world and not the world itself. It also allows us to play with hypothetical worlds by imagining what would happen if we changed some of the rules.
Physics is a construct. It is a tool we made up t help us understand the world. It has a more direct relationship with "reality" as we perceive it and can test it than math, but our understanding of physics grows and changes. We can also imagine hypothetical results of changing some aspect of physics and seeing what would happen on paper. Physics can be applied to help us predict and effect outcomes in the real world, but it is not part of the "real world".
Phone numbers are a part of a meaning we created as humans and imposed on the outside world. Humans created numbers and language and phones. They are a part of the outside world and not subjective, but they are not part of the "cat" experience, AFAIK. They are an example of something humans created and made real.
Morals do not exist independently of humans. You can not create a hypotheses and test whether or not the moral is correct. Would you try to say, "If it's wrong to torture babies, then..." and come up with a way to test your hypothesis that did not involve subject human reaction?
You may argue that morals, like telephone numbers, are something humans created that have taken on an independent meaning in the outside world, and there is a certain amount of truth in that. However, morals are not universal, and acceptance of a moral depends on the human buying into the system and developing it. Telephones had no meaning to people 500 years ago. There may be a time when we find a different way of communicating serves our needs better than the phone. I'll give you the existence of phones is objective, and they can be use by anyone who understands them. They are still an inventions.
Unlike phones, morals can not be demonstrated to be definitively "correct" or "false". You are more likely to convince people of moral values with emotional arguments and by hitting their personal squeak factor than through any practical or logical presentation. How would you respond to the "sex outside of marriage is evil" argument if it were presented as "objective" truth?
It is because I know they are made up that I can use them to make sense of my existence, just as I know how to use physics, or art or language. You agreed earlier that human experience is limited and there is no way to know everything without transcending human limitations, didn't you? You are probably familiar with Descartes' demon argument that for all we know everything we remember or experience or perceive could be the result of a demon being in control of our mind and could have no objective reality at all. This is similar to the theme in The Matrix where people believed they had lives in a real world, but were actually plugged into a virtual environment controlled by AI gone wild. The point is, the only thing we can be absolutely sure of is what we perceive to be true in a given situation, and we can never know for sure if there is any objective truth at all.
Given this limitation in the human experience, we are all ultimately alone in a potentially hostile universe. We strive, therefore, to transcend our limitations and create ways to connect to what we perceive as outside of ourselves. The only way to connect our perception of self and that we see as not self or other is to make constructs within our subjective mind to help give us a feeling of understanding, connection and meaning.
In this sense creation is transcendence (or perhaps the illusion of transcendence) and the only meaning I can have is that which I make for myself. Anything I perceive as outside of myself has already been filtered and arranged by my perception of the world, and it is within my awareness that I must exist, unless I find a way to go beyond the human condition or until I loose awareness and my own sense of existence.
I create meaning because I need it. It's possible I create everything else too a la the Matrix, though I doubt it. However, I stand by my created meanings as a means of connecting and transcending because they are my best bet of connecting to and understanding an objective reality. I can only see the world through my own eyes.
I wouldn't say "illusions" but I would say constructs. I might go with "inventions" (like the telephone), except that ideas have no physical form and cannot be used in quite the same way. Ideas are harder to verify than things, and tend to vary more from person to person (hence my use of "subjective"). Just because we created something doesn't mean we can't communicate it or use it, but all things considered, there is no "natural law" or universal moral system: we are making it up as we go along. Just because we make things up doesn't mean they aren't "real" to us.
Ethics and laws are not the same as morals, although they may be based on certain morals and values. You can point to written rule and say, "Here, we can apply this rule to these facts and get those results." Not a bad tool, unless we forget to allow for changing circumstances and have room for the rules to grow and adapt to human needs.
The rules are our tools, we are not theirs.
The problem with zero tolerance and absolute rules with no room from growth or exceptions is they can lead to negative or unwanted results in certain circumstances which may be the exact opposite of the goal of the original rule. Take "Any weapons in school means automatic expulsion. No exceptions, no appeal. A weapon is defined as any object that can be used to harm another." The moral behind this rule and the social goal is no doubt acceptable to most of us: harming others is "wrong", and harming each other in school is not beneficial for society. What happens when you start to apply this rule to every student, no exceptions? What if 5 year old has a plastic knife in his lunch? Throw him out! What if a student sharpens his pencil? You know that can be used to stab someone in the neck, right? Soon we can clear all those pesky kids out of our schools and put them in the streets where they belong. The schools will be safe. The streets, however, are another matter.
Rules, in and of themselves, are a useful tools for society. They are constructs, things we created, in some way like the way buildings are constructed, though they have less of a physical presence, because you can point to them and say" here are the words (though you can argue about what the words mean and how they should be applied). Rules existence depend on the authority and power of the person(s) making the rules, and the willingness of those ruled. You cannot argue a rule is objectively "right" or "wrong" in the same way you can argue whether or not the Earth is flat, but you can say, "Based on these rule, we should get these results."
If you create rules that are absolute and static, with no exceptions and no room for growth, change and refinement, you create a bad tool that will eventually be discarded when it does not serve people. Rules need balance. Rules need process. Rules need to have a mechanism for change, appeal, and further development. So the rules should be relative, and "true until further notice" just like everything else. We should never forget that we created rules, and therefore, we can recreate them.
PS I think slavery is wrong, and I hope that people will develop and teach morals where most think so too. George Washington didn't think it was immoral. We can judge him by our morals, but we can't change what his values were. If morals were objective, what is immoral to me should be immoral to George.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar