< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Entropy: objective basis for morality?

 
Giulio
 
Avatar
 
 
Giulio
Total Posts:  271
Joined  26-10-2016
 
 
 
10 December 2017 10:31
 
Igawa - 20 October 2017 10:42 AM

Something like that. I was trying to figure out where the transition between the world of preferences, and the world of a single preference (entropy increases), the cosmic view of the universe. For the concept of morality to even exist, there needs to be at least two possible preferences which lead to different outcomes.

If the most basic preference possible is for entropy to increase, then the second most basic is for it to decrease, right? You don’t need to add any more degrees of freedom into the mix. The most basic system I can think of that can actually pursue the second preference is something like a bacterium, or DNA, or some other self-perpetuating, self-regulating system. In short, confusing language, “life”.

I’m not saying that a DNA molecule is aware of this preference, much less capable of conceptualizing or philosophizing about it. I’m just saying that it HAS this preference. It’s built into it’s physical structure. Simply because it is the way it is, it will try to self-perpetuate.

What this mean for us humans? Difficult to say. There are so many more possibilities at this point that this ‘quantum preference’ can’t do a ton. However I think it’s fair to say that even at the human level it’s still a fairly ‘good’ preference to value self-perpetuation (Our bodies certainly prefer this. Think of pain, hunger, fear, etc). It sounds kinda Randian, except without her insistence on it’s primacy over all the other preferences we are also capable of having. I think it’s also a categorical and objective refutation of Nihilism at this level of analysis, though I don’t have the philosophy chops to actually prove such a thing.

So you are positing self-perpetuation vs self-disintegration as not only a moral choice, but in some sense a canonical moral choice?

I suspect this is only true in a tautological sense: moral choice, or choice of any kind, only makes sense with reference to something ie an agent or being of some kind - something that has some form of identity; and something with identity must necessarily be self-perpetuating.

From what vantage point could the decision to not self-perpetuate be considered a bad choice Presumably only from the vantge point of another self-perpetuating being.

And by self-perpetuation do you mean perpetuation of one’s own identity (consciousness), or of one’s recipe (genes), or something else?

Have you listened to the Waking Up podcast #107 with David Benatar?

 

 

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  377
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
10 December 2017 15:18
 
Giulio - 10 December 2017 10:31 AM
Igawa - 20 October 2017 10:42 AM

Something like that. I was trying to figure out where the transition between the world of preferences, and the world of a single preference (entropy increases), the cosmic view of the universe. For the concept of morality to even exist, there needs to be at least two possible preferences which lead to different outcomes.

If the most basic preference possible is for entropy to increase, then the second most basic is for it to decrease, right? You don’t need to add any more degrees of freedom into the mix. The most basic system I can think of that can actually pursue the second preference is something like a bacterium, or DNA, or some other self-perpetuating, self-regulating system. In short, confusing language, “life”.

I’m not saying that a DNA molecule is aware of this preference, much less capable of conceptualizing or philosophizing about it. I’m just saying that it HAS this preference. It’s built into it’s physical structure. Simply because it is the way it is, it will try to self-perpetuate.

What this mean for us humans? Difficult to say. There are so many more possibilities at this point that this ‘quantum preference’ can’t do a ton. However I think it’s fair to say that even at the human level it’s still a fairly ‘good’ preference to value self-perpetuation (Our bodies certainly prefer this. Think of pain, hunger, fear, etc). It sounds kinda Randian, except without her insistence on it’s primacy over all the other preferences we are also capable of having. I think it’s also a categorical and objective refutation of Nihilism at this level of analysis, though I don’t have the philosophy chops to actually prove such a thing.

So you are positing self-perpetuation vs self-disintegration as not only a moral choice, but in some sense a canonical moral choice?

I suspect this is only true in a tautological sense: moral choice, or choice of any kind, only makes sense with reference to something ie an agent or being of some kind - something that has some form of identity; and something with identity must necessarily be self-perpetuating.

From what vantage point could the decision to not self-perpetuate be considered a bad choice Presumably only from the vantge point of another self-perpetuating being.

And by self-perpetuation do you mean perpetuation of one’s own identity (consciousness), or of one’s recipe (genes), or something else?

Have you listened to the Waking Up podcast #107 with David Benatar?

 

I have not listened to it, but from what I’ve heard it seems that Benatar is a perfect example of something with identity that is ultimately not self-perpetuating.

I suppose it could be described as a canonical moral choice, but don’t get too carried away with that. The fundamental idea is that for a system that is self-perpetuating, choosing to cease self-perpetuation permanently changes its category from something that can self-perpetuate, to something that can’t. This forms a true categorical imperative (thanks, Kant), a fundamental ‘duty’ that simple self-perpetuating systems (such as bacteria or even the DNA inside it) are invariably fated to carry out due to their very chemical arrangement. However the larger and more complex the system becomes, the less ‘duty-bound’ it gets to this categorical imperative due to the exploding number of choices the system has, culminating in the David Benatars of the world.

If there is a fundamental, quantum moral good that applies to self-perpetuating systems and it is to choose self-perpetuation over disintegration, what does that mean for us humans? Very little, because things are never simple for us. How about this: A terminally ill patient issues a DNR and refuses further medical care. They are actively choosing self-destruction, so they’re doing something fundamentally immoral, right? What if by choosing this immoral act, they improve the situation for their children, and thereby in a roundabout manner encourage self-perpetuation (of their DNA)?. An objective morality can still leave all the room in the world for value judgments, while also establishing some scale and orientation for the moral math.

 

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3306
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
10 December 2017 21:10
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 December 2017 07:57 AM
Igawa - 18 October 2017 03:57 PM

Therefore my proposition is that self-perpetuation is the fundamental categorical imperative, since by giving it up the system would no longer remain in the category to begin with. For self-perpetuating systems there is no possibility or purpose in philosophizing at the superset where self-perpetuation has been given up or is not contingent, since doing so immediately removes that system from it’s subset. The bias for a system to increase it’s ability to reduce it’s own entropy is the quantum preference, and therefore also the quantum morally good statement. Conversely, to a system that is self-perpetuating, (can actively reduce it’s own entropy), renouncing or reducing it’s ability to self-perpetuate is the quantum morally bad statement. From these physical quantum foundations, morality is further constructed.

You’re conflating “objective” with “universal,” aren’t you? Entropy may be a universal basis for morality, but that doesn’t make it objective. Where by “objective,” we mean “independent of bias or belief or preference.” (“The bias for a system . . . is the quantum preference, and therefore . . . .”)

By that definition, there is not anything that is purely objective, or “truly” objective if you believe that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive in any degree.

Thomas Nagel called objectivity “The View from Nowhere”, because it is entirely a mental construction. As such it suffers from the same biases that any mental construction does, the most unavoidable of which is the limitation of the mind constructing it. At best, what we call “objective” can be considered to be merely consubjective, insofar as it takes into account the viewpoints of multiple subjects.

To put it another way, there is no human knowledge or belief that can be entirely objective, since each is unavoidably biased simply by the definitional necessity of it being conceivable by a human. That means there is no objective science that we humans know of, because every one of them that we know of must contain statements that are conceivable by a human, and cannot contain any statements that are not conceivable by at least one human.

 

 
 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3306
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
10 December 2017 21:30
 
Igawa - 10 December 2017 03:18 PM
Giulio - 10 December 2017 10:31 AM
Igawa - 20 October 2017 10:42 AM

Something like that. I was trying to figure out where the transition between the world of preferences, and the world of a single preference (entropy increases), the cosmic view of the universe. For the concept of morality to even exist, there needs to be at least two possible preferences which lead to different outcomes.

If the most basic preference possible is for entropy to increase, then the second most basic is for it to decrease, right? You don’t need to add any more degrees of freedom into the mix. The most basic system I can think of that can actually pursue the second preference is something like a bacterium, or DNA, or some other self-perpetuating, self-regulating system. In short, confusing language, “life”.

I’m not saying that a DNA molecule is aware of this preference, much less capable of conceptualizing or philosophizing about it. I’m just saying that it HAS this preference. It’s built into it’s physical structure. Simply because it is the way it is, it will try to self-perpetuate.

What this mean for us humans? Difficult to say. There are so many more possibilities at this point that this ‘quantum preference’ can’t do a ton. However I think it’s fair to say that even at the human level it’s still a fairly ‘good’ preference to value self-perpetuation (Our bodies certainly prefer this. Think of pain, hunger, fear, etc). It sounds kinda Randian, except without her insistence on it’s primacy over all the other preferences we are also capable of having. I think it’s also a categorical and objective refutation of Nihilism at this level of analysis, though I don’t have the philosophy chops to actually prove such a thing.

So you are positing self-perpetuation vs self-disintegration as not only a moral choice, but in some sense a canonical moral choice?

I suspect this is only true in a tautological sense: moral choice, or choice of any kind, only makes sense with reference to something ie an agent or being of some kind - something that has some form of identity; and something with identity must necessarily be self-perpetuating.

From what vantage point could the decision to not self-perpetuate be considered a bad choice Presumably only from the vantge point of another self-perpetuating being.

And by self-perpetuation do you mean perpetuation of one’s own identity (consciousness), or of one’s recipe (genes), or something else?

Have you listened to the Waking Up podcast #107 with David Benatar?

 

I have not listened to it, but from what I’ve heard it seems that Benatar is a perfect example of something with identity that is ultimately not self-perpetuating.

I suppose it could be described as a canonical moral choice, but don’t get too carried away with that. The fundamental idea is that for a system that is self-perpetuating, choosing to cease self-perpetuation permanently changes its category from something that can self-perpetuate, to something that can’t. This forms a true categorical imperative (thanks, Kant), a fundamental ‘duty’ that simple self-perpetuating systems (such as bacteria or even the DNA inside it) are invariably fated to carry out due to their very chemical arrangement. However the larger and more complex the system becomes, the less ‘duty-bound’ it gets to this categorical imperative due to the exploding number of choices the system has, culminating in the David Benatars of the world.

If there is a fundamental, quantum moral good that applies to self-perpetuating systems and it is to choose self-perpetuation over disintegration, what does that mean for us humans? Very little, because things are never simple for us. How about this: A terminally ill patient issues a DNR and refuses further medical care. They are actively choosing self-destruction, so they’re doing something fundamentally immoral, right? What if by choosing this immoral act, they improve the situation for their children, and thereby in a roundabout manner encourage self-perpetuation (of their DNA)?. An objective morality can still leave all the room in the world for value judgments, while also establishing some scale and orientation for the moral math.

I’m with you in thinking that the objective source of morality is self-perpetuation, of both individual and species. I have not listened to the Benatar interview because his views are quite similar to some of mine; I have similar feelings on the question of whether life is worthwhile. My conception of it is evolutionary: dispositions to ideas like Benatar’s are self-extinguishing, so are over a span of generations likely to be less prevalent in populations than other predispositions that are not self-extinguishing. Evolutionary processes thereby tend to bring about a prevalence of the notion and feeling that life is worth living. The prevalence of such notions and feelings is contingent.

It is my contention that morality is similarly contingent. To be sure, that is a predisposition to some morality, not any specific morality. There are some specific features that I believe are features of anything that humans call morality. One of the most significant is the tension between group benefit and individual benefit in any specific moral code. Another is the tension between the good of all humans and the good of in-group humans. Sometimes this tension is not overtly evident, but is only detectable by what is being opposed, such as blatant or unmitigated individual self-interest.

The question then is, does contingency rule out objectivity, in the same way that it rules out absolute universality? Is this a “non-subjective” rephrasing of the issue that Antisocialdarwinist raises?

By the way, use of the term quantum does not help the argument at all, even less so than the term entropy. Both are Deepakisms, but while the latter may have some applicability to the subject in some way (e.g., the self-organization of life seen as entropy reversal for species via an acceleration of entropy for the whole system), the former doesn’t appear to in any way that I can conceive of.

 
 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  377
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
10 December 2017 21:44
 
Poldano - 10 December 2017 09:10 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 December 2017 07:57 AM
Igawa - 18 October 2017 03:57 PM

Therefore my proposition is that self-perpetuation is the fundamental categorical imperative, since by giving it up the system would no longer remain in the category to begin with. For self-perpetuating systems there is no possibility or purpose in philosophizing at the superset where self-perpetuation has been given up or is not contingent, since doing so immediately removes that system from it’s subset. The bias for a system to increase it’s ability to reduce it’s own entropy is the quantum preference, and therefore also the quantum morally good statement. Conversely, to a system that is self-perpetuating, (can actively reduce it’s own entropy), renouncing or reducing it’s ability to self-perpetuate is the quantum morally bad statement. From these physical quantum foundations, morality is further constructed.

You’re conflating “objective” with “universal,” aren’t you? Entropy may be a universal basis for morality, but that doesn’t make it objective. Where by “objective,” we mean “independent of bias or belief or preference.” (“The bias for a system . . . is the quantum preference, and therefore . . . .”)

By that definition, there is not anything that is purely objective, or “truly” objective if you believe that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive in any degree.

Thomas Nagel called objectivity “The View from Nowhere”, because it is entirely a mental construction. As such it suffers from the same biases that any mental construction does, the most unavoidable of which is the limitation of the mind constructing it. At best, what we call “objective” can be considered to be merely consubjective, insofar as it takes into account the viewpoints of multiple subjects.

To put it another way, there is no human knowledge or belief that can be entirely objective, since each is unavoidably biased simply by the definitional necessity of it being conceivable by a human. That means there is no objective science that we humans know of, because every one of them that we know of must contain statements that are conceivable by a human, and cannot contain any statements that are not conceivable by at least one human.

There are objective facts in the universe, and though our means of describing them (units) are subjectively defined, that does not make the phenomena themselves also subjective. The reason why science does in fact discover objective facts is precisely because we do not use human perception to measure phenomena. We build unflinching, unthinking, and impartial experiments to probe the universe using the universe itself.

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3306
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
10 December 2017 22:32
 
Igawa - 10 December 2017 09:44 PM

...

Poldano - 10 December 2017 09:10 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 December 2017 07:57 AM
Igawa - 18 October 2017 03:57 PM

Therefore my proposition is that self-perpetuation is the fundamental categorical imperative, since by giving it up the system would no longer remain in the category to begin with. For self-perpetuating systems there is no possibility or purpose in philosophizing at the superset where self-perpetuation has been given up or is not contingent, since doing so immediately removes that system from it’s subset. The bias for a system to increase it’s ability to reduce it’s own entropy is the quantum preference, and therefore also the quantum morally good statement. Conversely, to a system that is self-perpetuating, (can actively reduce it’s own entropy), renouncing or reducing it’s ability to self-perpetuate is the quantum morally bad statement. From these physical quantum foundations, morality is further constructed.

You’re conflating “objective” with “universal,” aren’t you? Entropy may be a universal basis for morality, but that doesn’t make it objective. Where by “objective,” we mean “independent of bias or belief or preference.” (“The bias for a system . . . is the quantum preference, and therefore . . . .”)

By that definition, there is not anything that is purely objective, or “truly” objective if you believe that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive in any degree.

Thomas Nagel called objectivity “The View from Nowhere”, because it is entirely a mental construction. As such it suffers from the same biases that any mental construction does, the most unavoidable of which is the limitation of the mind constructing it. At best, what we call “objective” can be considered to be merely consubjective, insofar as it takes into account the viewpoints of multiple subjects.

To put it another way, there is no human knowledge or belief that can be entirely objective, since each is unavoidably biased simply by the definitional necessity of it being conceivable by a human. That means there is no objective science that we humans know of, because every one of them that we know of must contain statements that are conceivable by a human, and cannot contain any statements that are not conceivable by at least one human.

There are objective facts in the universe, and though our means of describing them (units) are subjectively defined, that does not make the phenomena themselves also subjective. The reason why science does in fact discover objective facts is precisely because we do not use human perception to measure phenomena. We build unflinching, unthinking, and impartial experiments to probe the universe using the universe itself.

Then we disagree. I remain of the opinion that even the most objectively-conceived facts are filtered by the perceiver’s bias. We can expand the limits to our perceptions and conceptions, but only with great difficulty. For one example, we cannot imagine all the possible universes that could have resulted from the big bang, even though our physics hints at other possibilities. Some possible universes possibly do not contain the parameters necessary for logic as we understand it to develop, and I say we cannot imagine that, or even say for certain (yet, anyway) that life or mind are either possible or impossible in such universes. The best we can do is say that life and mind “as we understand it” is impossible, and that is based on our conceptual limits based on logic (i.e., threshold distinctions, AKA the “not” operator).

 

 
 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  377
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
11 December 2017 09:09
 
Poldano - 10 December 2017 10:32 PM
Igawa - 10 December 2017 09:44 PM

...

Poldano - 10 December 2017 09:10 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 02 December 2017 07:57 AM
Igawa - 18 October 2017 03:57 PM

Therefore my proposition is that self-perpetuation is the fundamental categorical imperative, since by giving it up the system would no longer remain in the category to begin with. For self-perpetuating systems there is no possibility or purpose in philosophizing at the superset where self-perpetuation has been given up or is not contingent, since doing so immediately removes that system from it’s subset. The bias for a system to increase it’s ability to reduce it’s own entropy is the quantum preference, and therefore also the quantum morally good statement. Conversely, to a system that is self-perpetuating, (can actively reduce it’s own entropy), renouncing or reducing it’s ability to self-perpetuate is the quantum morally bad statement. From these physical quantum foundations, morality is further constructed.

You’re conflating “objective” with “universal,” aren’t you? Entropy may be a universal basis for morality, but that doesn’t make it objective. Where by “objective,” we mean “independent of bias or belief or preference.” (“The bias for a system . . . is the quantum preference, and therefore . . . .”)

By that definition, there is not anything that is purely objective, or “truly” objective if you believe that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive in any degree.

Thomas Nagel called objectivity “The View from Nowhere”, because it is entirely a mental construction. As such it suffers from the same biases that any mental construction does, the most unavoidable of which is the limitation of the mind constructing it. At best, what we call “objective” can be considered to be merely consubjective, insofar as it takes into account the viewpoints of multiple subjects.

To put it another way, there is no human knowledge or belief that can be entirely objective, since each is unavoidably biased simply by the definitional necessity of it being conceivable by a human. That means there is no objective science that we humans know of, because every one of them that we know of must contain statements that are conceivable by a human, and cannot contain any statements that are not conceivable by at least one human.

There are objective facts in the universe, and though our means of describing them (units) are subjectively defined, that does not make the phenomena themselves also subjective. The reason why science does in fact discover objective facts is precisely because we do not use human perception to measure phenomena. We build unflinching, unthinking, and impartial experiments to probe the universe using the universe itself.

Then we disagree. I remain of the opinion that even the most objectively-conceived facts are filtered by the perceiver’s bias. We can expand the limits to our perceptions and conceptions, but only with great difficulty. For one example, we cannot imagine all the possible universes that could have resulted from the big bang, even though our physics hints at other possibilities. Some possible universes possibly do not contain the parameters necessary for logic as we understand it to develop, and I say we cannot imagine that, or even say for certain (yet, anyway) that life or mind are either possible or impossible in such universes. The best we can do is say that life and mind “as we understand it” is impossible, and that is based on our conceptual limits based on logic (i.e., threshold distinctions, AKA the “not” operator).

What you’re describing is not a fact, it’s a conceptual entity. Saying that because you can’t describe the properties of one universe using the properties of another then there are no objective facts is absurd. It doesn’t matter what happens in another hypothetical universe of weird logic and physics, because we just do not exist in that system.

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3306
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
11 December 2017 23:37
 
Igawa - 11 December 2017 09:09 AM

...

What you’re describing is not a fact, it’s a conceptual entity. Saying that because you can’t describe the properties of one universe using the properties of another then there are no objective facts is absurd. It doesn’t matter what happens in another hypothetical universe of weird logic and physics, because we just do not exist in that system.

Whatever. It’s tangential to the thread and I wish I had not brought it up. I was addressing the limits of objectivity, and the limits to how objective it is possible for humans to be and become. Read Nagel if you’re interested enough.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6472
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
13 December 2017 17:21
 
Poldano - 11 December 2017 11:37 PM
Igawa - 11 December 2017 09:09 AM

...

What you’re describing is not a fact, it’s a conceptual entity. Saying that because you can’t describe the properties of one universe using the properties of another then there are no objective facts is absurd. It doesn’t matter what happens in another hypothetical universe of weird logic and physics, because we just do not exist in that system.

Whatever. It’s tangential to the thread and I wish I had not brought it up. I was addressing the limits of objectivity, and the limits to how objective it is possible for humans to be and become. Read Nagel if you’re interested enough.

In my many discussions about objective morality here, one of the most common mistakes proponents of it seem make is to conflate the perception of a thing with the thing itself. Even if objective perception is impossible (which I agree it probably is), that has no bearing on whether the things we’re perceiving are objective.

 
 
Giulio
 
Avatar
 
 
Giulio
Total Posts:  271
Joined  26-10-2016
 
 
 
13 December 2017 19:59
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 13 December 2017 05:21 PM
Poldano - 11 December 2017 11:37 PM
Igawa - 11 December 2017 09:09 AM

...

What you’re describing is not a fact, it’s a conceptual entity. Saying that because you can’t describe the properties of one universe using the properties of another then there are no objective facts is absurd. It doesn’t matter what happens in another hypothetical universe of weird logic and physics, because we just do not exist in that system.

Whatever. It’s tangential to the thread and I wish I had not brought it up. I was addressing the limits of objectivity, and the limits to how objective it is possible for humans to be and become. Read Nagel if you’re interested enough.

In my many discussions about objective morality here, one of the most common mistakes proponents of it seem make is to conflate the perception of a thing with the thing itself. Even if objective perception is impossible (which I agree it probably is), that has no bearing on whether the things we’re perceiving are objective.

Can you spell out the relevance of your final statement (with which I agree) for morality? Despite all the (self-substantiating) reflections about self-perpetuation,  objective morality is still an oxymoron to me.

 
Poldano
 
Avatar
 
 
Poldano
Total Posts:  3306
Joined  26-01-2010
 
 
 
13 December 2017 23:08
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 13 December 2017 05:21 PM
Poldano - 11 December 2017 11:37 PM
Igawa - 11 December 2017 09:09 AM

...

What you’re describing is not a fact, it’s a conceptual entity. Saying that because you can’t describe the properties of one universe using the properties of another then there are no objective facts is absurd. It doesn’t matter what happens in another hypothetical universe of weird logic and physics, because we just do not exist in that system.

Whatever. It’s tangential to the thread and I wish I had not brought it up. I was addressing the limits of objectivity, and the limits to how objective it is possible for humans to be and become. Read Nagel if you’re interested enough.

In my many discussions about objective morality here, one of the most common mistakes proponents of it seem make is to conflate the perception of a thing with the thing itself. Even if objective perception is impossible (which I agree it probably is), that has no bearing on whether the things we’re perceiving are objective.

For the record, and in case anyone assumes otherwise, I am not one of those of whom you speak.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6472
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
14 December 2017 07:38
 
Poldano - 13 December 2017 11:08 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 13 December 2017 05:21 PM
Poldano - 11 December 2017 11:37 PM
Igawa - 11 December 2017 09:09 AM

...

What you’re describing is not a fact, it’s a conceptual entity. Saying that because you can’t describe the properties of one universe using the properties of another then there are no objective facts is absurd. It doesn’t matter what happens in another hypothetical universe of weird logic and physics, because we just do not exist in that system.

Whatever. It’s tangential to the thread and I wish I had not brought it up. I was addressing the limits of objectivity, and the limits to how objective it is possible for humans to be and become. Read Nagel if you’re interested enough.

In my many discussions about objective morality here, one of the most common mistakes proponents of it seem make is to conflate the perception of a thing with the thing itself. Even if objective perception is impossible (which I agree it probably is), that has no bearing on whether the things we’re perceiving are objective.

For the record, and in case anyone assumes otherwise, I am not one of those of whom you speak.

For the record, that’s what they all say.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6472
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
14 December 2017 07:50
 
Giulio - 13 December 2017 07:59 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 13 December 2017 05:21 PM
Poldano - 11 December 2017 11:37 PM
Igawa - 11 December 2017 09:09 AM

...

What you’re describing is not a fact, it’s a conceptual entity. Saying that because you can’t describe the properties of one universe using the properties of another then there are no objective facts is absurd. It doesn’t matter what happens in another hypothetical universe of weird logic and physics, because we just do not exist in that system.

Whatever. It’s tangential to the thread and I wish I had not brought it up. I was addressing the limits of objectivity, and the limits to how objective it is possible for humans to be and become. Read Nagel if you’re interested enough.

In my many discussions about objective morality here, one of the most common mistakes proponents of it seem make is to conflate the perception of a thing with the thing itself. Even if objective perception is impossible (which I agree it probably is), that has no bearing on whether the things we’re perceiving are objective.

Can you spell out the relevance of your final statement (with which I agree) for morality? Despite all the (self-substantiating) reflections about self-perpetuation,  objective morality is still an oxymoron to me.

An oxymoron, or at least mutually exclusive.

That last statement is admittedly moot in the case of morality. Because when it comes to morality, the “thing” we’re perceiving (wrongness) doesn’t exist. So of course objective perception is impossible.

 
 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  377
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
14 December 2017 12:03
 

Well at what point does ‘wrongness’ or ‘rightness’ start to exist? Many can move, and will seek favorable environmental conditions (temperatures, pH, etc). It can recognize ‘favorable’ and ‘unfavorable’ environmental conditions, so can it conceptualize ‘good’ and ‘bad’ yet? An extremely incomplete conception of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by our standards, but it’s just a bacterium, after all.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6472
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
14 December 2017 19:37
 
Igawa - 14 December 2017 12:03 PM

Well at what point does ‘wrongness’ or ‘rightness’ start to exist? Many can move, and will seek favorable environmental conditions (temperatures, pH, etc). It can recognize ‘favorable’ and ‘unfavorable’ environmental conditions, so can it conceptualize ‘good’ and ‘bad’ yet? An extremely incomplete conception of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by our standards, but it’s just a bacterium, after all.

At no point. Perceptions of wrongness begin to exist with consciousness, but asking at what point wrongness itself starts to exist is like asking at what point do unicorns or Santa Claus begin to exist.

The perception of a thing vs. the thing itself…

Imagine if cats could perceive wrongness.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›