Kevin's Watch

Malik23 wrote:

rusmeister wrote:We must have blind dogmatic faith that our ability to reason is valid and that we are able to come to conclusions. Otherwise, we may not even think at all.

No, we can think without reason. In fact, much of our thinking doesn't involve reason. We make emotional judgments, aesthetic judgments, intuitive leaps, prejudiced assumptions, etc. Very little reason is used in most of our daily thinking. Habit and bias plays a much larger role.

True, but this misses my point, which is about where we DO use reason. Plus, it's the thing that separates us from animals. Deprived of reason, that is essentially what's left.

Malik23 wrote:

You can't cheer for any good guy or boo a bad gut in a film, because the bad guys simply use a different morality. Unless you come out and say that your morality is right and theirs is wrong, you cannot even think of 'good' or 'evil'.

I don't need "good" and "evil" to make moral judgments. All I need is "better" and "worse."

This is the point where your argument falls apart, as TD pointed out. Again, as an English teacher (who has to teach people who otherwise couldn't speak English at all), I can tell you that 'better' is the comparative degree of the adjective 'good', and 'worse' is the comparative of 'bad', just as "the best" and "the worst" are the superlative degree. This is embedded in the language itself (just like "a lie" - ie, one of many, but "the truth" - the one and only truth). You'd have to rip out all of your uses of those words if you deny 'good' and 'bad'. IOW, you can't even make comparisons without acknowledging a standard which you are progressing either to or away from. Put another way, on a ruler the ends would be the extremes, the superlatives, the middle is the dividing line between good and evil (the positive degree of the adjective) and any shift in one direction or the other or a comparison between two points is the comparative. If there is no positive degree there can be no comparative or superlative.

Ergo, there are absolute standards, however much we may not like the idea. Otherwise we'll have to deny the use of superlatives. Until further notice you are forbidden to use adjectives.

I'll be watching your grammar!

The Dreaming wrote:I don't think his views are as antithetical to this as you think. The first Chronicles, to me, always seemed a rousing defense of objectivity. Remember the fundamental question of Ethics?

To me, the F.Q.O.E was never answered definitively. In fact, I think it's a question that goes more to authenticity, than to "right" and "wrong." And the 2nd Chronicles justifies this belief even more, given that Covenant concludes that it doesn't matter if the Land is real or not; that question isn't as important as the realization that it is valuable to HIM, even if it's a dream. What can be a more "rousing defense" of subjectivism than that? Actually, I think it's a "rousing defense" of the existential concept of authenticity, which you can think of as either transcending the subjective/objective divide, or merely side-stepping it.

And the fact that Angus comes out of the Gap undeniably *better* than he entered it points to an objective basis for morality. Once again, if you can EVEN put morality on a continuum from "bad" to "better" you are implying an objective basis for morality. What about him *makes* him better? Something is changing, what is it? Right and Wrong are nearly meaningless words. All we truly encounter is "better" and "worse". But by making those judgments, we are holding someone to universal objective standards, whether we are willing to admit to it or not.

I'm not sure you can say that Angus comes out "undeniably *better.*" In fact, I've criticized Donaldson for his portrayal of Angus in moral terms, because I think morally he is too easy on Angus. His quasi-turnaround doesn't make up for the fact that he sold dozens of humans to the Amnion. I don't think there is redemption for him. However, this judgment of mine comes from treating him as if he were real. As a fictional character, I cheered for him because I thought he was a badass character. And ultimately his crimes had no effect, because they weren't real.

However, under no circumstances (either real or fictional) do my judgments imply an objective basis for morality. Someone else might disagree with me. But even if they agree, our unity of subjective views doesn't rise to the level of "objective." Which view encompasses the morality of the Amnion????

Well, the Amnion are, biologically, extremely different creatures from humanity. We don't *have* a morality that crosses between different intelligent species because we haven't encountered any.

Have you read Speaker for the Dead? It's an excellent look at how morality would be different between creatures of different biologies. However, the creation of a cross species ethic is a primary goal in the novel. While these two biologically very different species are responding to massively different biological needs, needs that lead to what appears to us to be murderous behavior, it stems only from misunderstanding. Through the tool of Empathy, Ender is able to see an alien race on their own terms, and create harmonious understanding between two species. While their moralities may be different because of different biologies, through reason they are able to come to mutual understanding. How would this ever be possible without the objective need for reciprocity and harmony?

The Amnion seem completely incapable of understanding human behavior and the human need for individuality. Hence, they can only be enemies. However they DO understand reciprocity, but only in a limited context. Individuality is an impossible concept for them to understand. What they do to human beings, in their imperfect ethic, is a good thing. If they could truly realize the magnitude of the wrong they were committing on us, their ethic would change. (as thinking creatures themselves, robotic as they seem to us.)

Of course, who the hell knows what a real intelligent alien race would be like? All we can talk about are fictions. (And that's really a shame)

rusmeister wrote:True, but this misses my point, which is about where we DO use reason.

I'm still waiting for a demonstration of that (where you DO use reason). You claim to use reason to deduce your morality (or a least judge your absolute standards, which amounts to the same thing), but I don't believe you actually do this. Your hesitancy to provide an example makes me even more dubious.

. . . 'better' is the comparative degree of the adjective 'good', and 'worse' is the comparative of 'bad', just as "the best" and "the worst" are the superlative degree. This is embedded in the language itself (just like "a lie" - ie, one of many, but "the truth" - the one and only truth). You'd have to rip out all of your uses of those words if you deny 'good' and 'bad'. IOW, you can't even make comparisons without acknowledging a standard which you are progressing either to or away from. Put another way, on a ruler the ends would be the extremes, the superlatives, the middle is the dividing line between good and evil (the positive degree of the adjective) and any shift in one direction or the other or a comparison between two points is the comparative. If there is no positive degree there can be no comparative or superlative.

Ergo, there are absolute standards, however much we may not like the idea. Otherwise we'll have to deny the use of superlatives. Until further notice you are forbidden to use adjectives.

I'll be watching your grammar!

You've got a smiley at the end, so I'm not sure how serious you are about this argument. My gut reaction is to say that it's silly, but I don't want to offend you if you're actually serious.

So, let's treat it seriously. Grammar doesn't dictate reality. You can't derive any "truth" about the world--much less something as fundamental as Absolute Standards--simply by the syntax of these sounds we humans make with our lips and tongues. Relations between ideas cannot yield conclusions about facts.

If we really could derive Absolute Standards merely from the structure of our language, then this "universal" technique ought to work for anything we talk about, right? Like music. We talk about music. We judge music. We certainly say some composers and songs are "better" than others. We certainly prefer some more than others. So does this use of "better" and "worse" imply some universal standard? You say:

You'd have to rip out all of your uses of those words if you deny 'good' and 'bad'. IOW, you can't even make comparisons without acknowledging a standard which you are progressing either to or away from.

So according to this argument, we either have to admit that there's a universal standard which musical quality either progresses towards or recedes away from--or we must "rip out all uses of those words" to describe music. In other words, we couldn't judge some music as better or worse than other music. But this is clearly not the case. I know without a doubt that I like jazz fusion more than I like country music. In the scales of my preferences, there is no way they are equal. So how do you account for the fact that I can value one more than the other without a universal standard to judge them?

There is no musical standard. There is no way to say that a piece of music is better than others in an absolute sense. There are only personal preferences. And though I can explain my preferences with justifications such as: "I prefer the improvisational complexity of jazz over the simplistic, repetitive, jingoistic twang of country," there is nothing universally better about my criteria. Other people can like simplistic music, and there's nothing I could say to prove my opinion had more worth. Simplicity can be beautiful.

But according to your linguistic argument, we can't talk about music with these comparatives, since there is no universal standard.

Which is why I say you can't possibly be serious about this argument. I don't expect you to suddenly give up your favorite music, or the way you talk about it.

Or, as Kant said: logical necessity does not necessitate existence.

Or, as Hume said: "All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are] discoverable by the mere operation of thought ... Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing."

Relations of ideas (e.g. logic and grammar) cannot be used to "derive" matters of fact. When you assert that there are absolute standards by which objects or actions in the world can be judged in virtue of their "participation in" or their "deviation from" these standards, you're asserting a matter of fact in the world.

And that's your fundamental problem. Moral judgments aren't in the world. They are "in our heads." Moral judgments aren't facts. They are opinions. They don't exist objectively in the world; they exist subjectively in our preferences. A man is objectively 6'1", dark haired, 225 pounds. But he is only subjectively good or bad. Moral worth doesn't exist like a physical characteristic. It ONLY "exists" in as much as a person judges him. And this judgment most certainly does NOT require some absolute standard, no more than judging music requires an absolute standard. This absolute standard doesn't exist as a fact. It exists as a confused grammatical understanding . . . in other words: an ambiguous, problematic concept in your mind.

And that is point on which our debate hinges. The reason why you think there are absolute standards is because you (incorrectly) think that morality is an inherent quality of people (inherent in their souls, perhaps?), while I think that moral worth is only "in the eye of the beholder." I'm not merely saying that morality is subjective--i.e. judged individually--I'm also saying that it's an opinion imposed upon a person, rather than an inherent quality we discover in a person. You, on the other hand, think that moral worth is in the person, and travels with them wherever they go, regardless if there's anyone around to judge them. In fact, you think this inherent quality "sticks" with them, so much so that they can be judged in the Afterlife based on this quality.

However, your position relies upon imaginary, created fictions: a soul to "carry" the moral-worth-quality, and a God who constantly sees this quality even when no one else is around to judge it. Your position doesn't rely upon reason. It relies upon fictional concepts and mythology. There's nothing logical about it. I keep inviting you to prove this statement wrong, but you abstain. (You grammar argument doesn't count. Grammar is another human creation.)

So, let's treat it seriously. Grammar doesn't dictate reality. You can't derive any "truth" about the world--much less something as fundamental as Absolute Standards--simply by the syntax of these sounds we humans make with our lips and tongues.

You’ve misunderstood me. – I’m not saying “grammar dictates reality” but the reverse – that reality dictates grammar; IOW, that grammar reflects reality like a mirror (although the mirrors have different shapes and sizes).

The concepts of ‘better’ and ‘worse’ do objectively stem from the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Grammar reflects this – it does NOT cause it. The language expresses the perceived reality. You will lose if you challenge me on that (at least as far as the audience is concerned).

In comparing music and morality you are engaging in casuistry. Music IS something that can be formed according to taste – anyone can compose whatever they want, and there is potentially an infinite range of musical possibilities.
Morality is something that we have an enormous degree of agreement on, unlike music. As soon as I hit you, take your toy, your pizza or your seat, you will respond in a manner that corresponds entirely to the morality I subscribe to – regardless of how you may describe it, the fact remains that you will be offended and feel that I have violated your rights – rights that are only possible in the face of some kind of mutual agreement on what morality is, that it has a specific nature that is not subject to taste.

Moral judgments aren't in the world. They are "in our heads."
Moral judgments aren't facts. They are opinions. They don't exist objectively in the world; they exist subjectively in our preferences.

The first statement is correct in that our moral awareness IS internal. No argument as far as that goes. The second one is what we disagree upon totally. The fact that your emotional reaction to my hitting you or stealing your toy will be the same way that every other normal person’s is indicative of reference to that common standard, which is not visible in the physical laws of nature as you correctly point out, but nevertheless is a constant of human nature.

Your position doesn't rely upon reason. It relies upon fictional concepts and mythology. There's nothing logical about it.

I have said before that the part that relies upon reason is the part based on observation of both my own internal state (my desires, passions and reactions) and the behavior of others. To that extent, it is rational. It has even been identified as an essential part of the scientific method. This is not reliance on fictions and mythology.

Language is a tool who's sole function *is* to express ideas. It's imperfect, but some of my problems with pure relativism have nothing to do with language. While, of course, ideas are sometimes imperfectly translated with language, it's the only tool we have. You are using the exact same tool to convince us that language is a worthless tool for describing logic! You can't win an argument by throwing the pieces off of the chessboard, that's just ludicrous. Language *can* be mathematically precise in certain cases. (Let's not forget that Mathematics *itself* is a language). The Phrase "There are no absolutes" is a logically, mathematically self-nullifying statement. If you can't argue away the paradox of that statement, it means we have you in a logical trap. It's the mathematical equivalent of saying a number isn't equal to itself.

There are plenty of ways too look at the universe that completely negate our ability to perceive anything approaching truth. They must be rejected because without the ability to make rational observations of the universe with some basis in truth, without the ability to reason, we are all just wasting our time by debating.

For example, mathematically, it is UNBELIEVABLY improbable that the entropy of the universe was lower in the past than it is in the present. When you see half-melted ice cubes in a glass of water, the laws of thermodynamics, being symmetrical backwards and forwards in time, actually say that the instead of having a glass with unmelted ice cubes in the past, you had only a room temperature glass of water, just as you are sure to have in the future.

This is a majorly weird thing about thermodynamics. Since it is overwhelmingly more likely that the past had higher entropy, just as the future will, it is actually more statistically probable that the entire universe, your entire sense of the present moment, is a statistical aberration. A huge *spike* of low entropy in an otherwise static universe. This *can* happen, and it is actually way more likely than the incredibly low entropy start of the universe in the currently accepted scientific cosmology. (Big Bang and such) Mathematically, it is *more* likely that everything you know, sense, remember, and think is an illusion created by a random configuration of particles in an otherwise static and unchanging universe.

I am *not* making this up. This is one of the Major problems in contemporary physics, trying to determine the difference between the past and the present. The point is, why do we completely reject that actually *more* likely depiction of the universe? Because if everything we know and reason is just an illusion, we are all just wasting our time. Any theory which trivializes the fidelity of the observer's perception and reasoning is an impossible theory, just as the "random spike in entropy" theory is soundly rejected, despite it's statistical likelihood.