>>ALL morals that we have, regardless of the source, regardless of whether they are objective or subjective, are filtered through humans. As such, we can never be absolutely sure that they are free from error. All of your “moral governance”, “reasoning and responsibility“, “self referential”, “IS-OUGHT” talking points are just that. Talking points. They are not arguments against what I have said about the fact that ALL purported moral actions are open to be questioned. Unless, of course, you suggest that we shouldn’t use the reasoning capabilities that we were given. >>
This is of course reflective of common views and agendas in our civilisation and so it is appropriate to reply, taking time to address key issues at worldviews level:
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
Could you be in error that you are conscious?
If so, what is there that is aware to regard the possibility of error? (And this is about the bare fact of consciousness, you could be a brain in a vat manipulated by electrified probes to imagine yourself a man in the world and you would still be undeniably certain of the bare fact of your own consciousness.)
Speaking of, that error exists is also undeniably true. Let E be that claim, then put up the attempted denial ~E. In other words ~E means it is an error to say that error exists. So, E is undeniable.
2 + 3 = 5 is also self-evident and undeniable:
|| + ||| –> |||||
In general, SET’s are truths that — once we are able to understand i/l/o our experience of the world — are seen to be so, and to be necessarily so on pain of patent absurdity on the attempted denial.
Such lie at the heart of rationality, through the manifest fact of distinct identity. Take some distinct A like a bright red ball on a table, so the world W is:
W = {A|~A}
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Likewise from distinct identity two-ness is a direct corollary and from that the natural counting numbers and much of the logic of structure and quantity follows — i.e. Mathematics (which is NOT primarily an empirical discipline). As a start, I use the von Neumann construction:
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
In particular, that something like E is knowable to utter certainty on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial means, truth exists as what says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Similarly, this is warranted to utter certainty and so some things can be known to utterly, absolutely cretain degree. Therefore any worldview that imagines that such knowledge is impossible collapses in fatal, central error. Subjectivism, relativism and post modernism, I am looking straight at you.
Going further, following the Kantians, many have been induced to imagine that there is an ugly gulch blocking us from knowledge on the external world of things in themselves. Ever since F H Bradley over 100 years ago, this is known to be false. For, the claim to know of such an ignorance gap is to claim to know something of the outside world, i.e. the claim is self referential and incoherent.
A plumbline
We may then infer freely, that we may and do know things about reality external to our interior lives. Though, as error exists is equally certain, we must be careful in warrant. As a first test, plumbline truths will help us. And for many things a lesser degree of warrant is more than good enough. For example on serious matters, we may have moral certainty, that it would be irresponsible to act as though some A were false, on the evidence to hand or reasonably accessible. For yet other things — including science by and large — plausibly or possibly so and reliable i/l/o the balance of evidence is good enough. And so forth.
I am taking a little time to show you that I am not just talking from empty talking points, there are grounds of warrant for what I have to say. And, speaking for this blog, on worldview matters we have spent years thinking through such core matters. As, they lie at the heart of how our civilisation is in the state it is.
Now, too, you will notice that in speaking of moral certainty, I highlighted responsibility, moral government. We intuitively know that we have duties to truth, care in reasoning, fairness, justice, neighbour who is as we are, and more.
All of this reflects how our life of reason is inextricably entangled with responsibility, duty, moral government. And, dismissive hyperskepticism seeking to sweep that away is manifestly a failure of such duties.
Were our rational faculty utterly unrestrained by responsibility, duty, moral government, it would fall into the cynical nihilism of utter manipulativeness and imposition by force: might and/or manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘justice’ and more. That is suicidally absurd. And you know better, as you know that the very force that energises dispute such as in this thread is duty to truth, sound reason and more.
Yes, the mere fact that we inescapably find ourselves trying to justify ourselves and show others in the wrong immediately reveals the massive fact of moral government, and that this is critical to governing ourselves in community. On pain of mutual ruin.
But then, that surfaces another point you wished to brush off with dismissive talking points: the IS-OUGHT gap. That IS and OUGHT are categorically distinct and hard to resolve and unify. That has been known since Plato and beyond. Since Hume, we have known it can only be resolved at world-root level, or else we fall under the guillotine of ungrounded ought. Reasoning IS-IS, then suddenly from nowhere OUGHT-OUGHT. Where, if OUGH-ness is delusion, it instantly entails grand delusion, including of the life of responsible reason itself.
Your root challenge is, there is only one serious candidate that can soundly bridge the gap: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
This is not an arbitrary imposition, we are dealing with worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory adequacy (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). If you doubt what I just said, simply put up a successful atlernative: ________ . (Prediction: v. hard to do.)
So, we are at world-root level, looking at generic ethical theism and the central importance of moral government in our life of reason.
The easy hyperskepticism that sweeps all before it on sheer rhetorical audacity is not good enough.
And, it is interesting that so far you have not readily found significant fault with the central Christian ethical teaching (which is of course profoundly Hebraic in its roots). It is there above, laid out in full. Kindly, tell us why those who acknowledge themselves to be under its government and will readily acknowledge that it is a stiff life-challenge are to be instantly, deeply suspect with but few exceptions.
And, tell us why a civilisation deeply influenced by such a teaching is to be branded with a scarlet letter instead of found to be in the sort of struggle to rise to excellence in the face of our finitude, prone-ness to error, moral struggle and too often our ill-will that are the anchor-points of genuine progress for our world.>>
I should add an earlier remark on two example of self-evident moral truth:
KF, 15: >>[I]mplicit in any contested argument is the premise that we have duties to truth, right and soundness in reasoning. On pain of twisting our intellectual powers into nihilistic weapons of cynical deception. In short X objects to Y, on the confident knowledge of in-common duties of intellectual, rational and epistemic virtue. The attempt to challenge ALL moral obligation would be self-referential and incoherent, undermining good faith reasoning itself.
I would go so far as to say this duty of care to truth, right and sound reasoning is self-evident and is typically implicitly accepted.
So, no, we cannot challenge ALL moral claims without undermining even the process of argument itself. No, we cannot dismiss general moral reasoning as suspect of being a blind appeal to authorities. No, mere consequences we happen to imagine (ever heard of the doctrine of unintended consequences?) or motives we think we read in the hearts of others (you are the same who seemingly views Christianity in general as though we are automatically suspect . . .) cannot ground such a broad-brush skepticism about moral reasoning.
We are already at self-referential incoherence.
Infinite regress comes out of the insisted on ALL and the inextricable entanglement of reasoning and moral duties as were outlined. Claim A is suspect so B must be advanced but implies another ought, so B requires C, and oops, we are on to infinity and absurdity.
General hyperskepticism about the moral brings down the proud edifice of reason too by fatally undermining its own self.
Selective hyperskepticism ends in inconsistency, exerting a double standard: stiff rules for thee, but not for me when such are not convenient to where I want to go . . . .
we need plumbline, naturally straight test cases.
One of these, as I outlined, is the inextricable entanglement of reason and duty to truth, right and soundness of logic.
In that light, we can then look at sound yardstick cases and clear the rubble of the modernist collapse of rationality and responsibility away.
For example,it is self-evidently wrong, wicked, evil to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasure. (And, sadly, this is NOT a hypothetical case.)
Probe this case and you will see that such a child hath neither strength nor eloquence to fight or plead for himself or herself. And yet, were we to chance on such a demonic act in progress we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least bawl for help.
We are inescapably under moral government.
Which implies that IS and OUGHT must be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of reducing moral government to grand delusion that takes down rationality itself in its collapse.>>
Food for thought. END
Comments
Origenes, CR does not understand that to critique first principles of right reason, he has to implicitly use said principles. Actually, to think at all in concepts or to try to communicate in any coherent fashion. This is part of the problem. KF
PS: Let Error exists be E. Deny, ~E, this means it is an error to believe that error exists, it refutes itself, E is undeniably true. Likewise, to do this one has to be conscious. To be conscious is self-evident also, you cannot be deceived that you are conscious though you can be about the content of your consciousness. See the OP. This is a measure of how sad a day we live in.kairosfocus
January 2, 2018
January
01
Jan
2
02
2018
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PST
We can make exact statements about this entire problem space via constructor theory
No you can't.
You (very publicly) run from your own statements.
See Here and Here, and Here.Upright BiPed
January 2, 2018
January
01
Jan
2
02
2018
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PST
CR @234
CR: The things you call self evident truths are subject to critical evaluation.
In order to better understand what you are saying, can you provide us with a critical evaluation of "error exist" and/or "A = A"?
CR: So, they are not actually imune from critical evaluation.
When a critical evaluation does not produce a single dent or scratch, can it not be said that the evaluated item is "immune" from critical evaluation? Put differently, when you say that "error exists" is "not actually immune from critical evaluation", are you saying that critical evaluation of "error exists" is successful and leads to the revising of "error exists"?Origenes
January 2, 2018
January
01
Jan
2
02
2018
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PST
@UB
There is no evidence whatsoever that the material conditions enabling biology are built-in to the laws of physics.
I don't know why you insist on using such vague terminology. For example, what do you mean by "enabling biology"?
We can make exact statements about this entire problem space via constructor theory. Specifically, which material transformations must be possible for life, what is the appearance of design, what would qualify as a set of physical laws in which life if possible, but does not contain contain the deign of replicators or even specific organisms, and does that match our actual laws of physics, etc.
And we can do this by segmenting physical systems into a more fundamental way: a constructor, a substrate to be transformed and inputs/outputs, which represent either possible or impossible tasks. This is a new mode of explanation, which is not possible in the current conception of physics.
This question is addressed in detail in this paper.....
Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory explains how the appearance of purposive design in the sophisticated adaptations of living organisms can have come about without their intentionally being designed. The explanation relies crucially on the possibility of certain physical processes: mainly, gene replication and natural selection. In this paper I show that for those processes to be possible without the design of biological adaptations being encoded in the laws of physics, those laws must have certain other properties. The theory of what these properties are is not part of evolution theory proper, and has not been developed, yet without it the neo-Darwinian theory does not fully achieve its purpose of explaining the appearance of design. To this end I apply Constructor Theory's new mode of explanation to provide an exact formulation of the appearance of design, of no-design laws, and of the logic of self-reproduction and natural selection, within fundamental physics. I conclude that self-reproduction, replication and natural selection are possible under no-design laws, the only non-trivial condition being that they allow digital information to be physically instantiated. This has an exact characterisation in the constructor theory of information. I also show that under no-design laws an accurate replicator requires the existence of a "vehicle" constituting, together with the replicator, a self-reproducer.
So, the actual laws of physics we do have are no-design. That is, they do not already contain the design of replicators or specific organisms, already present there. Yet we do not need to add anything to our laws of physics for life to be possible.
High fidelity replicators are passible They can be described as a network of possible tasks, that have possible subtasks and further possible subtasks that eventually end up at possible generic tasks that are not replication specific.
This is what it means to say our laws of physics are no-design.critical rationalist
January 2, 2018
January
01
Jan
2
02
2018
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST
Why do you disagree with my statement? It reads, “self evident truths are not subject to critical evaluation.”
The things you call self evident truths are subject to critical evaluation. So, they are not actually imune from critical evaluation. And I've provided example of just that in #207. There is no dichotomy between basic beliefs and non-basic beliefs. There are just beliefs that we have currently have no good criticisms of. Criticisms failing are all that we have.
Nothing anyone has said here has contradicted this. Criticisms always failing is not being immune from criticism.
Claims that X needs to be true, otherwise you couldn't do Y is a criticism of the idea that X is false.
Deciding to call something a self evident truth doesn't magically make it immune from criticism.critical rationalist
January 2, 2018
January
01
Jan
2
02
2018
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PST
UB, yes. Unfortunately, I doubt that such facts will make much of an impression (due to the calculated impact of polarising narratives), though I can always hope to be shown wrong on this. KFkairosfocus
January 2, 2018
January
01
Jan
2
02
2018
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PST
SB, feel welcome to go around the bush yet again. I predict, you will find nothing more substantial than many others have, who have tried. KFkairosfocus
January 2, 2018
January
01
Jan
2
02
2018
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PST
JS,
You have been scathingly dismissive and have even trampled on the memory of an 8-year-old victim, but have yet to tell us why REJECTING the following does not immediately land us in patent absurdity.
First, a bit of background:
Were our rational faculty utterly unrestrained by responsibility, duty, moral government, it would fall into the cynical nihilism of utter manipulativeness and imposition by force: might and/or manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘justice’ and more. That is suicidally absurd. And you know better, as you know that the very force that energises dispute such as in this thread is duty to truth, sound reason and more.
Yes, the mere fact that we inescapably find ourselves trying to justify ourselves and show others in the wrong immediately reveals the massive fact of moral government, and that this is critical to governing ourselves in community. On pain of mutual ruin.
A simple scan of the thread above will suffice to substantiate this picture and it will render any attempt to deny it patently absurd. It is operationally absurd to deny the fact that our rational interior life is morally governed, and those who set out to benumb or render that government ineffective become monstrous in one way or another. We can start with, typically ending in the "what can I get away with" mode of might and/or manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'justice' etc.
(This is already heavily pregnant with deep world-structure consequences and challenges any worldview that cannot adequately address such, especially by providing a sound bridge between IS and OUGHT in the world root, the only place where such is feasible.)
Now, the yardstick case should be viewed in this context:
For example, it is self-evidently wrong, wicked, evil to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasure. (And, sadly, this is NOT a hypothetical case.)
Probe this case and you will see that such a child hath neither strength nor eloquence to fight or plead for himself or herself. And yet, were we to chance on such a demonic act in progress we are duty bound to try to rescue or at least bawl for help.
We are inescapably under moral government.
Which implies that IS and OUGHT must be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of reducing moral government to grand delusion that takes down rationality itself in its collapse.
Now, a review of the thread above and others that interact with it will show evasions, distractors, side-steps, appeals to personal feelings, thought and beliefs etc, but never a direct denial. This is because the attempted denial of what this sadly real case shows would at once end in monstrous, nihilistic absurdity. It would also mean, in practical terms, pretty directly the breakdown of wider civil society into feuding clans that take revenge on any member of the other group for real or imagined slights or wrongs. One of the promises of the state was to end the perpetual civil war of the clans by enforcing a system of just civil law that fosters broader human thriving through the civil peace of justice.
Part of the implied terms of the covenant of government in the nation under God; speaking historically.
Of course, the civil order can be subverted, by tyranny, by corruption, by manipulation and deceit, and more. All of these are forms of nihilist breakdown. And in that context, failure to protect children from monstrous predators is a pretty strong indictment.
(I know, I know, many are ever so eager to pounce on the Roman Catholic church and even to extend this to "Religion" the better to advance their nihilism. I am a convinced Protestant, but I always thought there was something cynical afoot on that; especially as at the same time the same forces were busily undermining the ability of Boy Scouts to prevent access to their boys by predators. By their inconsistencies shall ye know them. The current unfolding scandals and accusations suffice to show that through the cynical hypocrisy that has now been exposed. By their hypocrisies shall ye further know them. And yes, I am also very concerned that unsubstantiated tainting accusations that lack sound warrant are patently there and have in some cases been weaponised to take down or try to take down people. That too is a warning; sooner or later someone is going to revert to the clan feud when the institutions sufficiently fail to defend innocent reputation. In a feudal context, the penalty for lese majeste against leading members, historically, has consistently been very strict: death. Clan survival in a shame/honour culture depends on respect for the clan lord and his key associates. The clan will take down those who fail, from within. Rule 303 at 800 - 1,000 yards range is very feasible and is in fact not capable of being stopped, especially if one deals with those of the I have nothing left to lose mentality. We are playing with dangerous fire.)
So, do we want to keep on standing on the cracked, crumbling edge of an abyss?
Coming back to focus, the evidence is undeniable that we find ourselves under moral government, under a law of OUGHT. One, we cannot escape. And, to suggest that this is "only" subjective is to imply it is delusional. But once that virus is let loose, it cannot be checked. We are here looking at grand absurdity that is self-referential, infinitely regressive (it would take in every act of reasoned mind) and so absurdly ruinous.
Those are precisely the marks of self-evident truth.
Going further, the particular case is highly instructive on specific duties of care to the individual due to his or her quasi-infinite worth and dignity rooted in being human. In short, being made in the image of God as a rational, responsible, morally governed unique individual, a living, enconscienced soul.
Having, thus, been endowed with "certain unalienable rights."
Among which are life, liberty, pursuit of sense of calling [aka happiness], fruit of mental or manual toil, honestly acquired property, innocent reputation, conscience, innocent expression, innocent association, petition for redress of legitimate grievance and more.
Thence, that legitimate governments are instituted among men to enforce the civil peace of justice above and beyond what feuding clans can do. Thus, governments gain and hold legitimacy through the expressed consent of the governed, conditional on carrying out their responsibilities under the broader scope of nationhood under the Supreme Lord and Just Judge of the cosmos, its founder and our creator. Thus, they must respect the laws of our morally governed nature, which are in relevant parts evident to responsible honest competent reason.
Let us again hear Cicero in De Legibus, The Laws (Echoing Plato):
—Marcus [in De Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man. We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws.
Quintus. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation.
Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions.
They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil.
The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
From 1765, let us hear Blackstone in his commentaries on the laws of England:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker's will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 - 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 - 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 - 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian's Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe].
So much for dismissive rhetoric about being "vague" and "mythical" etc. No, there is a huge corpus of law and commentary, state documents and history of ideas. But, we project our ignorance in place of readily accessible facts to the contrary, starting with the US DoI of 1776 and its historical antecedents. But so often we are led to disbelieve what our lying eyes tell us, by those who pretend to be our intellectual superiors.
Reduction to patent absurdity trumps any clever, sophisticated argument, friends.
That's why it is so feared and despised.
When therefore a higher magistrate becomes destructive to such ends, by gross negligence, corruption, repeated scandal, abuses and oppression, or blatant tyranny, it is the collective right of the people, the clans, the nation, to act through interposed lower magistrates (including popular representatives) to petition for redress. And where a deaf ear is turned to remonstrance, to remove and replace failed government, making due reforms as necessary. Where, the general election is an institutionalised, peaceful means to achieve such.
And we could go on and on, but enough has been said to outline the utter unreasonableness and cynical irresponsibility of the attempt to besmirch this historic view of morality and where it takes the community. Yes, cynical, as there are many in positions of due responsibility to educate who have abundant access to relevant materials that would substantiate a truer and fairer view who have instead perpetuated a deceptive, polarising, one-sided narrative.
It is time to ask, to what end are they heading? Why?
KFkairosfocus
January 2, 2018
January
01
Jan
2
02
2018
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PST
JS, just a quick comment: There is no evidence whatsoever that the material conditions enabling biology are built-in to the laws of physics. To the contrary, there is enormous evidence that they are not. Life is the product of a very specific (and well-documented) organization that "sits on top" of dynamics. Such an organization can be found nowhere else in the cosmos except in the use of written language and mathematics (i.e. two unambiguous correlates of intelligence).Upright BiPed
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PST
KF concerning CR
SB, perhaps you should start with, once there is some A (say, a bright red ball on a table) with distinct identity, we may view the world W as partitioned, W = {A|~A}. From this distinction, immediately A is itself, no x is both A AND ~A, any x is A X-OR ~A. These are not “subject to criticism,” as criticism must inevitably start there. The very attempt to deny these, immediately depends on them. These are prior to criticism, in the usual sense or any idiosyncratic sense CR et al may choose to apply. These come first, in short. KF
That would be an excellent approach. However, I want to know *why* CR disagrees so that I design the appropriate response. That is why I chose to ask a question rather than provide an explanation for something that was not asked for. He did, after all, pose an objection without providing a reason for it. Let's find out how worthy it is, then we can both weigh in.StephenB
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PST
1. I would have to be theistic abiogenesis...
2. I agree...J-Mac
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PST
J Smith
When I say that vanilla ice cream *is* better than chocolate ice cream, does this mean that I am making an objective claim?
Yes, that is what it means. You are saying that chocolate ice cream is better than any other kind. Of course, one can be forgiven for using imprecise language on matters of little importance. Not so with the subject of morality.
To be accurate, though, you would need to say that you like chocolate ice cream better than any other kind, but people with different tastes are free to disagree. Then you would be in the subjective realm.
Tyrannical societies tend to be the most ordered societies in history. Don’t confuse ordered with stable.
That is incorrect. A well ordered society is one that functions in a way that serves the common good, which makes it an objective good for that reason. It is also one that integrates diversity in unity, as indicated.
I feel like I am repeating myself but I have never claimed that there are no objective/self-evident truths. Just that moral values and actions don’t qualify.
You have said that there are no self-evident moral truths. If you acknowledge self-evident truths in other contexts, then we have a meeting of the minds to that extent. However, it should be evident that we are discussing moral truths, since the self evident truths concerning logic and causality are not under discussion.
If you answer that it is something that anyone can figure out for themselves, then you are talking about a subjective conclusion.
The process of apprehending an extra-mental, self-evident truth is subjective, but the extra-mental self-evident truth that is apprehended is objective. We have the investigator (subject) and the thing being investigated (object), Hence, we make the distinction between subjective and objective.
I agree that it is natural for humans to form communities. And I agree that the fact that we are social beings has been an objective truth throughout our history.
It is always good to come to a meeting of minds.
But whether or not this is objectively good is an opinion that we have nothing to compare to.
There are five objective goods appropriate to human nature. [a] to seek what it good [b] to survive [c] to perpetuate the species [d] to live in community and [e] to use the faculties of mind and will to make choices. It should be obvious that these are all objective in nature. That means they are good for humans because that is the way humans were made. It has nothing to do with anyone’s subjective opinion.StephenB
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PST
JM
You don’t believe in abiogenesis, do you?
I am not sure about that. But if God set up the universe such that life could rise from non life, is it really abiogenesis?
BTW. I feel for many people who read UD… If they don’t have strong faith, they can easily became atheists…
Certainly not by the arguments of atheists. But maybe from not wanting to be associated with the childish behaviour of a handful of the theistic commenters.JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PST
Atheists have strong faith of course. There are plenty of new religions they invented and are strongly pushing them on others. Environmentalism, sexual revolution, global warming, social justice etc are examples of new atheist religionsEugen
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PST
SB
Words mean things. When you use them, you are accountable for the way that most people would understand them.
No. I am accountable for what I mean. If others don’t understand what I meant then it is my responsibility to rephrase it in a way that, hopefully, gets my meaning across. Which is what I did.
To say something *is* wrong is to say that it is objectively wrong,
When I say that vanilla ice cream *is* better than chocolate ice cream, does this mean that I am making an objective claim?
which means that it is wrong for everyone.
So, chocolate ice cream is wrong for everyone.
If, on the other hand, morality is subjective, as you indicate, then everyone is free to decide the matter for himself, which means that such an act is not immoral for anyone whose subjective morality can justify it.
People who do things that most of us would consider to be morally wrong (raping a child) fall into two categories:
1) those who, through reasoning, conclude that it is wrong and do it regardless (we call them legally culpable); and,
2) those who have reasoned it through and come to the conclusion that it is not wrong (we call them not legally culpable. ie. innocent by reason of insanity).
Why would we acknowledge this in law if we don’t see it at some frequency above that of a statistical anomoly? Again, we are dealing with majority rules. You and KF may not like it, but this is what we see on a daily basis.
That last sentence is very confused. We are discussing order, not something “far more.” None of these societies you mentioned are well-ordered. They are all tyrannical.
Tyrannical societies tend to be the most ordered societies in history. Don’t confuse ordered with stable.
A well ordered society is one that functions in a way that serves the common good, which makes it an objective good for that reason.
You just lectured me on the use of the word *is* and then follow up with the improper use of the term *well ordered*. Totalitarian regimes tend to be very well ordered. Everything and everyone in the place and role assigned to them.
Please don’t try to have it both ways again. You have said that there are no objective moral truths and that there are no self-evident moral truths. That is the issue on the table.
I feel like I am repeating myself but I have never claimed that there are no objective/self-evident truths. Just that moral values and actions don’t qualify.
No, KF and I, are arguing that *some* moral actions are objectively and self evidently good (or bad)...
And I have asked how and who comes up with list. If you answer that it is something that anyone can figure out for themselves, then you are talking about a subjective conclusion. If you answer that only qualified people can use reason to draw the correct conclusion then you are still talking about a subjective conclusion. If you answer that it is something that we all innately know and can figure out if we think about it, we are still talking about a subjective conclusion. Even if there is some finite list of objective values, they still require subjective interpretation that is open to error. Therefore, indistinguishable from subjective.
It is good and natural, for example, for humans to form communities. That is because they were created as social beings, which is an objective, unchanging truth.
I agree that it is natural for humans to form communities. And I agree that the fact that we are social beings has been an objective truth throughout our history. But whether or not this is objectively good is an opinion that we have nothing to compare to. I suspect that the universality of our moral governance comes from our social nature (or causes our social nature). What this moral governance works on is subjective in nature. Over time, the most successful moral values will become more and more prevalent, to the point where they approach universality. But that does not make them objective in origin.
You have not addressed the point that we both made. Subjective morality always leads to tyranny.
What’s to address? Tyranny exists. If morality is objective, it can obviously lead to tyranny. If morality is subjective, it can lead to tyranny as well.JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PST
JSmith @221,
That's a fair response...
You don't believe in abiogenesis, do you?
BTW. I feel for many people who read UD... If they don't have strong faith, they can easily became atheists...J-Mac
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PST
JM
JS: Who said I didn’t believe in God?
JM: Surprise… surprise… Tell us some more… I’d be interested…
I believe that God created the universe and created the conditions needed to lead to us. Other than that, I am agnostic.
I guess Barry’s OP on you being a “simpering coward” doesn’t really address the issue anymore, does it?
I wouldn’t know. I tend not to take any OP seriously when it starts with a childish insult. However, some here seem to be attracted to those types of childish antics like dogs in heat. Sadly, it says more about them than it does about me.JSmith
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PST
JSmith @ 175:
"Except that we can replicate NDE using chemical and other physical changes to the brain."
Materialists like to claim this, but the best drugs and chemicals and brain deficits like oxygen deprivation can do is poorly mimic a few of the less important features of NDEs - nothing like the actual experiences. Actual NDEs involve heightened, vivid "realer-than-real" experiences sometimes involving passing through a tunnel, entering an otherworldly realm, encountering a brilliant light and seeing deceased relatives and friends, a life review, revelations and life lessons, intense positive emotions and mystical feelings, and an (often unwilling) return to the body. These memories are not hallucinations or of imagined events, as shown by several studies including the use of EEGs. These memories are very similar to memories of real events especially in terms of their richness and strong emotional content.
On top of this there is the large body of veridical evidence from the accounts, where for instance NDEers describe (as perceived from a detached location above), later verified details of their medical treatments and rescusitations and details of conversations and statements by the medical personnel. All this occurring while their brains were simply not operating due to conditions like cardiac arrest.doubter
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PST
SB, perhaps you should start with, once there is some A (say, a bright red ball on a table) with distinct identity, we may view the world W as partitioned, W = {A|~A}. From this distinction, immediately A is itself, no x is both A AND ~A, any x is A X-OR ~A. These are not "subject to criticism," as criticism must inevitably start there. The very attempt to deny these, immediately depends on them. These are prior to criticism, in the usual sense or any idiosyncratic sense CR et al may choose to apply. These come first, in short. KF
PS: Newtonian dynamics (which are not universal i/l/o small and/or fast moving bodies at appreciable fraction of c) are inductive, not self evident.kairosfocus
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PST
CR:
I have already stated that I’m disagreement with the statement “*self evident truths are not subject to critical evaluation*”, not that I do not understand it.
No, actually this is the first time you have stated the point using those words and, as a bonus, the first time it was comprehensible.
Now that I know what you are talking about--an event worth celebrating--I will ask the obvious question:
Why do you disagree with my statement? It reads, "self evident truths are not subject to critical evaluation."StephenB
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PST
CR @
Ah more from the anti-philosopher Deutsch!
Wiki: To Deutsch, … aspects of a good explanation, and more, are contained in any theory that is specific and "hard to vary". He believes that this criterion helps eliminate "bad explanations" which continuously add justifications, and can otherwise avoid ever being truly falsified.
Those who think that Deutsch must therefore hold that evolutionary theory is a bad explanation are in for a small surprise:
Deutsch: The analogy between the theory of evolution and the 2+2 theory is in fact closer than the mere difficulty of imagining a good explanation to the contrary. Both of them, if false, would seem to involve there being laws of physics that directly mess with the creation of knowledge, in what we would consider a malevolent way.
Wait a minute, wait a minute … what is Deutsch saying here? If 2 + 2 = 4 is false, then there are “laws of physics that directly mess with the creation of knowledge, in what we would consider a malevolent way.” .. *what??*
And, what a coincidence (!) the same can be said if it were the case that evolution is not true. Because if evolution is not true, then, (isn’t it obvious?!) we also get “laws of physics that that directly mess with the creation of knowledge, in what we would consider a malevolent way.”
*What is this poor devil talking about???*
This makes for very bad explanations, but that doesn’t affect the logic of the issue so here goes:
Those laws of physics, that directly mess with the creation of knowledge in a malevolent way, make up for bad explanations? *Whaaat??*
The analogue of creationism being true, then, would be something like that there is really no such entity as the number 4 ….
Wait a minute, …. if creationism is true, then, … it would be like there is no number 4 … *What madness am I reading here?*
… because the axioms of arithmetic as we know them are blatantly inconsistent …
*What?*
… and that the laws of physics act on neurons to make us unconsciously confabulate excuses for ignoring the physical effects of that.
— David Deutsch
….
Question: Is it unethical to ban a person for being crazy?Origenes
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PST
Note: I have presented good criticism of the idea that some ideas are not subject to criticism in #207.
Merely responding that self-evident truths are defined as being not subject to criticism doesn't somehow make that a bad criticism.critical rationalist
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PST
Everything. I have read that sentence three times and I have no idea what it means.
I have already stated that I'm disagreement with the statement "*self evident truths are not subject to critical evaluation*", not that I do not understand it.
Is there something about that statement that StephenB doesn't understand?
I can conceive of the idea, "traveling from earth to Jupiter in normal space in eight seconds" yet think it is mistaken, because it would imply traveling in normal space faster than the speed of light.
Defining "Rapid Earth-Jupiter velocity" as the speed it would take to reach Jupiter from Earth in eight seconds, does't somehow make traveling from earth to Jupiter possible in eight seconds.critical rationalist
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST
CR to StephenB
CR: What is it about “you have confused misunderstanding with disagreement in that it mistaken” that you do not understand?
Everything. I have read that sentence three times and I have no idea what it means.Origenes
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PST
@Origenes
I gave an example of what I mean in my comment.
If so, then how did you determine how obviously and unambiguously true each of those candidate propositions was in relation to the other candidates? Did you not stop and criticize them by an attempt to quickly consider reasons or ways they might be conceivably false?
Attempting to conceive of reasons or ways why something might be false is criticism of that idea.
Good criticism of an idea would be a good argument containing some reason or ways that it might be false. Criticisms failing is not the same as being immune to criticism.
From the Fabric of Reality list...
On 22 Apr 2011, at 2:57pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 wrote:
>
>> does your criterion admit that "2 + 2 = 4" is falsifiable?
>
> Certainly. If Tommy has two cupcakes in a box and then Tommy puts two more
> cupcakes in a box and Tommy doesn't now have 4 cupcakes in a box then the
> idea has been proven false.
Yeeees.... but more importantly, no.
The thing is, if carried out under the conditions implied, the outcome would not refute the theory that 2+2=4 but rather, it would refute the theory that the Tommy-cupcake-box system accurately models the numbers 2 and 4 and the operation of addition.
This is exactly analogous to why, as I argued, the fossil rabbit in the Jurassic stratum would not refute the theory of evolution: experimental testing is useless in the absence of a good explanation.
What would a good explanation that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 look like? I can't think of one; that's because the theory that it's true is, in real life, extremely hard to vary. That's why mathematicians mistake it for being self-evident, or directly intuited, etc. And it is of course my opinion that 2+2 does in fact equal 4, so I'm not expecting to find a contrary theory that is at all good as an explanation. But, for instance, Greg Egan's science-fiction story Dark Integers explores essentially that possibility (albeit only for very large integers).
The analogy between the theory of evolution and the 2+2 theory is in fact closer than the mere difficulty of imagining a good explanation to the contrary. Both of them, if false, would seem to involve there being laws of physics that directly mess with the creation of knowledge, in what we would consider a malevolent way. This makes for very bad explanations, but that doesn't affect the logic of the issue so here goes: The analogue of creationism being true, then, would be something like that there is really no such entity as the number 4 because the axioms of arithmetic as we know them are blatantly inconsistent, and that the laws of physics act on neurons to make us unconsciously confabulate excuses for ignoring the physical effects of that.
-- David Deutsch
critical rationalist
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST
@StephenB
You seem to be equating unification, in the ability to apply an idea to what was thought to be separate areas as "running a theory into the ground". Future quantum gravitists would apply their theory to apples and planets and relativistic speeds and at the very small scale! Will they ever stop running their theory into the ground?
Unification is what Popper did in his theory of knowledge. It's applicable across what was thought to be separate areas. When I use it in multiple places, it's because its applicable across those areas. Then again, running a theory into the ground is a vague criticism, so I might have got what you meant wrong.
What is it about *self evident truths are not subject to critical evaluation* that you do not understand?
What is it about "you have confused misunderstanding with disagreement in that it mistaken" that you do not understand?
Nor is this a response to criticisms presented in #207.
Is this argument by dictionary definition? The origin of the word Atom?
late 15th century: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible’, based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut’.
If we go by that definition, then atoms are indivisible. Yet, they can be split. Nor would reciting this definition act as a defense from nuclear weapons.critical rationalist
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PST
CR @
CR: Since I don’t have an example of a self evident truth that we have good criticism of ...
What do you mean by "good criticism"? I suppose that you do not mean criticism that fails ....
CR: If all of our criticisms of 2 + 2 = 4, etc., fail, then yes, there is a basis for mathematics. And, they have continued to fail.
So? Do we have "good criticism" of 2 + 2 = 4? Whatever "good criticism" means?
CR: Criticisms failing is all we have.
We do not have 2 + 2 =4, I exist, A = A and so forth? All we have is "criticism failing"?
- - - -
Put another way: what are you talking about?Origenes
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PST
JSmith,
Who said I didn’t believe in God?
Surprise... surprise... Tell us some more... I'd be interested...
I guess Barry's OP on you being a "simpering coward" doesn't really address the issue anymore, does it?J-Mac
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PST
CR:
Those Newtonians running their theory into the ground, when they explain the motions of apples *and* planets and all objects we know of! And then those general relativists, explaining the motions of those things at very high speeds!
What in the name of sense are you talking about. Newton didn't apply his scientific methodology or his scientific explanations to pass judgment on self evident truths. He began the entire enterprise with self evident truths because he was a rational man.
Since I don’t have an example of a self evident truth that we have good criticism of, I’ll just say something vague, like running their theory into the ground.
What is it about *self evident truths are not subject to critical evaluation* that you do not understand?StephenB
January 1, 2018
January
01
Jan
1
01
2018
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PST
J Smith
You are just arguing over semantics, like WJM does when he uses terms like ‘preference of ice cream’.
Words mean things. When you use them, you are accountable for the way that most people would understand them. To say something *is* wrong is to say that it is objectively wrong, which means that it is wrong for everyone. If, on the other hand, morality is subjective, as you indicate, then everyone is free to decide the matter for himself, which means that such an act is not immoral for anyone whose subjective morality can justify it. So you should simply express your opinion accurately: Torturing babies *seems* wrong to you but you have no objection against their baby-torturing morality since they are entitled to define their morality subjectively just as you are entitled to define your morality subjectively.
No, social order is not an objective, universal and absolute good.
Social order is most definitely an objective, universal, and absolute good.
The society in Orwell’s 1984 was very ordered. The Indian society under the caste system was very ordered. North Korean society is very ordered. I’m sure that is not what you intended to say. There is far more to society than just being ordered.
That last sentence is very confused. We are discussing order, not something "far more." None of these societies you mentioned are well-ordered. They are all tyrannical. A well ordered society is one that functions in a way that serves the common good, which makes it an objective good for that reason. The societies that you mentioned are not objectively good because they do not allow for diversity in unity. Liberals, like yourself, clamor for a false diversity at the expense of unity; tyrants, like Hitler, insist on a false unity at the expense of diversity. The natural moral law indicates that both elements must be present for a well-ordered society, which is objectively a good thing since, as indicated, it promotes the common good. Of course, you don't recognize the common good because you disavow all forms of objective good.
I have never said that there were not objective facts, or self-evident truths. That would be a very different discussion.
Please don't try to have it both ways again. You have said that there are no objective moral truths and that there are no self-evident moral truths. That is the issue on the table.
We are talking about whether or not our morally based actions are objectively, self-evidently good. And I argue that they are not.
No, KF and I, are arguing that *some* moral actions are objectively and self evidently good (or bad) and that we can, through the use of reason, derive the morality of other kinds of actions from the ones that are self evident. That is the way the natural moral law works. Hence, it is self-evidently true that we should not murder, from which we can conclude that we should not commit wanton acts of violence or even degrade others through cruelty of speech. The last two points are not necessarily self evident, but they are objectively true nevertheless. Such acts violate the objective moral code. Their morality is not a matter of subjective opinion.
For example, we are gregarious, we are curious, etc. I also accept that there are moral values that allow human societies to thrive. But these values can change based on the conditions humans find themselves.
Our human nature is not defined by gregariousness, which is a personality trait. Our human nature is defined primarily by our intellect, by which we can know the good, and our will, by which we can do the good. It is our nature to strive for things that are objectively good--to survive, to procreate, to form communities, and to use our intellects and wills for the purpose of making good decisions. Again, it is obvious that these goods are objective in nature. It follows that the moral code that supports those actions must also be objective.
It is good and natural, for example, for humans to form communities. That is because they were created as social beings, which is an objective, unchanging truth. That is one of the reasons why solitary confinement is one of the worst punishments that can be inflicted. There are subjective elements to come into play, of course, because changing conditions and differing personalities make it necessary to find different ways to apply these same objective unchanging truths.
I am familiar with NML.
I don’t think so.
I just think that it is nonsense at least in the way it is being used here. KF’s nonsense claim completely ignores reason and social agreement. But admitting that would undermine his world view.
You have not addressed the point that we both made. Subjective morality always leads to tyranny.
And pretending that humans aren’t sexual animals will only make it worse.
The nature of a human is different from the nature of an animal. Yes, humans are part animal, but their nature transcends that of an animal. To assume that humans are mere animals is to subject them to the worse kind of abuse. Humans can reason, animals cannot. Humans can restrain their impulses, animals cannot. Humans can know the difference between right and wrong, animals cannot. Humans can become saints or scoundrels, animals cannot. Most importantly, humans can, and often do, pervert their nature, animals cannot.StephenB
KF, 32: >>Pardon, but it is now further evident that you have not seen the significance of self-evident truth in general.
From this world partition, we instantly see that A is itself, and no x can be (A AND ~A), also that any x is (A X-OR ~A). That is, from distinct identity, the three first principles of right reason are immediately present: Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle.
Much more can be said, but the above is sufficient to show that there are literally infinitely many things that we may know with utter certainty, starting from a few that are self-evident. But also, such SET’s are insufficient to construct a worldview; they serve as plumbline tests for worldviews.
