L&FP 44a: What is 2 + 2, Mr Smith? (1984 as demonstration of how first duties and first truths are inextricably intertwined)

MNY, the errors of Marxism and its daughter ideologies stemmed from amorality, lawlessness and nihilism joined to the idolatrous ideology of political messianism, something as old as Nimrod. Warped minds, debased minds, reprobate minds cannot think straight due to systematic disregard for first duties tied to broken consciences. The significance of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers in this should not be underestimated. KF kairosfocus

KF, it's still true that the people who espouse objectivity for their views on morality, are the same people who are the problem. That the objectivists are well, liars, and so not really objective, is besides the point. Ofcourse when one is an objectivist, then one's emotional life will suffer because of that, because of not paying attention to subjective issues. So these people would have a dark emotional life, and from that they turn to lying, killing etc. It was supposedly objectively true that the communists had the right on their side, so then they did what was neccessary for the objectively right side to prevail, which was lying in trial and killing her. As like in war, people kill each other. It was just war. Basically you are arguing you are the true objectivist, and these are fake objectivists. Which sounds a lot like socialists criticizing each other for not being true socialists. Now would communism and nazism be defeated by promoting subjectivity? Is objectivity the key error of nazism and communism? The answer is ofcourse yes. Freedom of personal opinions does defeat both communism and nazism. A freedom which you seek to deny by making morality objective. It is clearly shown that all the errors in nazism and communism come from encroaching on the proper domain of subjectivity, and replacing it with objectivity. mohammadnursyamsu

Insanity kairosfocus

WJM, civilisation is currently going over the cliff actually as its edge crumbles underfoot. KF kairosfocus

@Kairosfocus You should ask WJM why he banned opinions of people (regarding his article published on UD about his MRT joke) that were against his theory ? Why would do such a thing him who talk against duty? : )))) Sandy

MNY, I see your communists as objective claims and raise you one case of planted evidence and false accusation based judicial murder. Do you see why I anchor to a literary prophecy by someone who knew communists at close hand and horrifying historical reality. As in big lies on steroids? Do I need to point to the Reichstag fire and echoes since then starting with 1976 in my homeland and coming down to today quite literally? KF kairosfocus

F/N: From L&FP40, an excerpt:

I find Michael Davidson helpful as he discusses what he terms Reid’s Razor, in effect a manifesto of defeasible but heuristically generally effective common good sense reasoning:

[Reidian Common good sense as definition and razor, 1785:] “that degree of judgement which is common to men with whom we can converse and transact business”

Davidson shrewdly points out, how the Razor shaves:

Take a philosophical or scientific principle that is being applied to a particular situation: ask yourself whether you would be able to converse rationally and transact business with that person assuming that principle governed the situation or persons involved. If not dismiss the principle as erroneous or at least deeply suspicious. For example, suppose someone proposes that things-as-they-appear-to-be are not things-as-they-really-are. I do not think I would buy a used car from this man.

That seems a fair enough test of habitual adherence to first duties of reason — or otherwise. Y’know: to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness and justice, etc.

I suggest, going forward the would I buy a used car from this person test. One issue is that once our perceptions, faculties or minds are deemed delusional or are deemed likely to be so, there are no firewalls and one looks at grand delusion self-referential collapse of mind. Plato's cave world is absurd, and it is safer to accept local peculiarities, errors and error proneness but draw the line at anything that invites a grand delusion inference. And yes, that means I will not take the Kantian ugly gulch or simulation world or world is all mental views as having even initial credibility. Failing the common sense test. KF kairosfocus

WJM, laws against murder as chief example, have not stopped people from doing murder, including those acting as officials under solemn ceremonies and colours of law. That does not change the fact that life is the first right, and that there is an associated first, self evident duty to do justice. Czechoslovakia, c 1948 - 50, was falling into lawlessness in service to Communist tyranny, having first been seized by Nazi Germany in 1938 - 39. Milada Horakova was in fact taken by the Nazis and was being tried under equally false colours of law when she was liberated in Germany by Allied forces. The sad events of 1950 are after she returned home to her country then under Soviet occupation, and again sought to stand up for basic liberties. This case is a strong lesson on the vital importance of lawfulness in the state. KF kairosfocus

MNY, relativism, subjectivism, emotivism are particular views on ethics or wider philosophy that seek to reduce ethical knowledge to lacking objectivity. As I have repeatedly had occasion to cite, they fail. By contrast, it is our rational, responsible freedom reflected in our being subjects that allows us to be able to be free enough to warrant knowledge. Say, a GIGO-limited computational substrate, is not free enough to actually make rational inferences and judgements. So, a computer has no independent knowledge. KF PS: Again, for reference:

Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.

kairosfocus

TimR, it has already been pointed out that the matter is first not germane to the focal topic. It is possible for the Bible to be wrong etc while the focal topic that self-evident first truths and first duties are intelligible, pervasive and inextricably intertwined stands. Second, KM was given first responses in this and previous threads and links to where those better qualified to take time to go through Bible difficulties etc can take or have taken time to address the matter, in some cases at book length, I just saw vids such as here. A 101 balancing remark is here. She chose, instead, to become abusive and accusatory, cf 80 on above (shortly after an inconsistency in her views was highlighted by another commenter, I add see 90 above for a summary reponse, about as much as is reasonable here); then, to double down. This thread and this blog are not the right venue for any drawn out contentious debate on Bible topics and related difficulties, especially given the hostile intent of those who have put forward the notion that ID is a stalking horse for right-wing, Christofascist theocracy and the like. On this last, kindly see the UD Weak Argument Correctives under the Resources tab. KF PS: I believe I should add that if people obviously struggle with self-evident truth in general, find it difficult to acknowledge that there are first principles and first duties of right reason that pervade our rational life, etc, then it is clear that our problems are far deeper than Bible difficulties topics. Our civilisation has been brought to a point where we literally cannot find agreement on the whole regarding first principles and manifest first facts. That is how deeply the acid of hyperskepticism has eroded away our framework -- hence importance of Reidian common sense realism. That is not a good sign but it is an achievement of this UD series to draw it out. In that light it is not unexpected that no degree of warrant will satisfy a significant proportion of people on ANY topic of consequence, and that many will be manipulated by those who exploit this breakdown. So, we literally need to put first things first. Absent willingness of a critical mass to come to terms on first principles, no progress is possible and the outlook for our civilisation is grim. I fear, we are going to have to relearn fundamentals through pain, dislocation, needless strife and horrific loss. Including, geostrategic losses that the world can ill afford. We are playing with hellfire -- and I hope to God it does not come to nuclear exchanges in the ME and Eastern Asia where China is obviously going for a blue ocean breakout. kairosfocus

WJM, nope, duty comes first and has authority resting on principle; note the first duties I have highlighted; and which your objection yet again appeals to in trying to dismiss by "sophistry." KF kairosfocus

Hi KF, I didn't read the whole conversation with KM, but I think she was pointing out that in the bible god commands his people kill all Amalekite children? I'd be interested in the answer to that. Wouldn't self-evidently wrong mean that it was always wrong no exceptions? So if its permitted in the bible, it can't be self evidently wrong can it? TimR

I’m finished talking about inconsequential matters.

Everything you say is inconsequential         We have lift off! jerry

To everyone except WJM, 8-) I went over WJM's comments from the purgatorial thread of a few weeks ago (the one with over 1300 comments), and studied his argument there that everyone is motivated to seek experiential enjoyment. It seems to me that if that is what motivates people, and in particular WJM, then it undercuts any ethical or philosophical import that his statements might have otherwise had: Rather than trying to make objectively true statements or seeking to arrive at truth, WJM is, by his own admission, making statements that provide enjoyment for him. But if that is his chief and/or only goal, then regardless of how logical his arguments may have sounded, we can safely reject them as mere attempts at more experiential enjoyment. They have no further significance. In other words, he has sawed off the limb he was enjoying sitting on. (I, of course, don't share that view that we're only getting enjoyment, so my statements are not thusly affected.) EDTA

SB said:

If you have something of substance to say, then say it.

I'm finished talking about inconsequential matters. William J Murray

KF. You refer to evil people as the problem. Wicked tyrants, wicked judges, etc. Obviously the case of communism is not a case of straightforward evil, like lust, greed, whatever. It's a systemic evil, caused by the rejection of subjectivity, in materialist communism. And your ideas of rejecting subjectivism and emotivism, communists love such ideas. Communists love the idea of objective scientific pretense for their personal judgements. So then they surpress all other personal judgements, as being just emotivist, subjectivist, [snip], and glory in the certitude of their objective judgement. Communists call their theory, "scientific socialism", it's all objectivity. Same with nazi's. Nazi's refer to the objective law of natural selection, which is then extended to "socialist selection". It is all full of pretense of objective, scientific, judgement. You are still not meaningfully evaluating how much of a problem you think rejection of subjectivity is. You are not communicating with me. mohammadnursyamsu

SB to WJM:: You have everything completely backwards. The whole point of the moral code is to prompt individuals and societies to do the right thing, regardless of what those in authority might think and regardless of what the consequences might be.

Inconsequential sophistry.

It is a lot easier to make cheap comments like that than to address the issue. SB: Only someone who can be bound by a noble principle can act morally. Anyone who cannot be bound by principle is a worthless human being.

Inconsequential sophistry and rhetoric.

This is yet another failure to engage the issue. If you have something of substance to say, then say it. SB: That is why Thomas More was a great patriot and Pontius Pilate was a craven bureaucrat.

Careful, SB. You don’t want to start trotting out consequences, such as how peers think about you or how history paints you, to try to support a moral law you claim is independent of any consequences.

Sometimes your confusion is hard to fathom. It’s all about principle, not consequences. Thomas More died a noble death because he ignored your nonsensical standard, refusing to cower to the authorities or allowing the prospect of a death sentence to deter him from his mission. Pontius Pilate, on the other hand, died in disgrace because he, like you, had no objective moral code to live by, so when the heat was on, he allowed his "personal preferences" and his excessive “love of enjoyment” to determine his behavior. StephenB

Jerry So I assume it’s done for perverse reasons.

Looks like when you read WJM messages you enter in an peaceful state of mind. He got in your mind. :) Sandy

Yep. Look what her “natural rights” prevented from happening to her: absolutely nothing. Look at what the supposed moral duties of the officials stopped them from doing: absolutely nothing.

Are you being willfully stupid? No sane person could possibly make this comment. So I assume it’s done for perverse reasons. jerry

Kf said:

In cases such as Milada Horakova, ..

Yep. Look what her "natural rights" prevented from happening to her: absolutely nothing. Look at what the supposed moral duties of the officials stopped them from doing: absolutely nothing. William J Murray

You have everything completely backwards. The whole point of the moral code is to prompt individuals and societies to do the right thing, regardless of what those in authority might think and regardless of what the consequences might be. Inconsequential sophistry.

Only someone who can be bound by a noble principle can act morally. Anyone who cannot be bound by principle is a worthless human being.

Inconsequential sophistry and rhetoric.

That is why Thomas More was a great patriot and Pontius Pilate was a craven bureaucrat.

Careful, SB. You don't want to start trotting out consequences, such as how peers think about you or how history paints you, to try to support a moral law you claim is independent of any consequences. KF said

WJM, duty is not force ...

Duties that are not enforced is inconsequential sophistry. When either of you have something other than inconsequential sophistry made to appear important via use of rhetoric, let me know. SB said:

Meanwhile, my point that duty is part of the natural law structure persists. You offered no credible response, so your claim that authority and consequences are required has been refuted.

Show me a natural law that doesn't entail a natural authority and natural consequences, and I'll show you more inconsequential sophistry. William J Murray

WJM, duty is not force though in community it may be advisable to back certain duties by force. Duty is built into the structure of freedom, one is to use freedom aright by free choice; to build, to move towards or express due ends etc. There are consequences to neglecting or flouting duty but such are separate from tribunals, penalties and the like. In cases such as Milada Horakova, tribunals and other officials failed in their duty and robbed her of freedom, dignity and life itself through cruelly calculated judicial murder. The officials held offices with duties to justice, their legitimate authority was duty-bound but was obviously perverted by wicked tyrants and henchmen, likely Stalin. The sheer duty carried a different authority than office, it was right, and sound conscience would affirm. Your attempted redefinition fails. KF kairosfocus

WJM

If all you have to offer in your “moral law” is something without any authority that holds me responsible and without any consequences, you are arguing for something that is completely irrelevant to me, .....

You have everything completely backwards. The whole point of the moral code is to prompt individuals and societies to do the right thing, regardless of what those in authority might think and regardless of what the consequences might be. Only someone who can be bound by a noble principle can act morally. Anyone who cannot be bound by principle is a worthless human being. That is why Thomas More was a great patriot and Pontius Pilate was a craven bureaucrat. Meanwhile, my point that duty is part of the natural law structure persists. You offered no credible response, so your claim that authority and consequences are required has been refuted. StephenB

SB said:

So you keep saying, but saying it doesn’t make it so. You need to make your case.

I've made my case whether or not you find it convincing. If all you have to offer in your "moral law" is something without any authority that holds me responsible and without any consequences, you are arguing for something that is completely irrelevant to me, and there's no reason for me to even consider your argument in the first place. I don't find discussing inconsequential sophistry enjoyable - largely because I'm a pragmatist, I suppose. I'm sure others find such inconsequential arguments enjoyable, so I'll leave it to them to talk about it with you. William J Murray

SB, let's put some more of your "self evident truths" about good an evil things to the test. You say knowledge is a good, and ignorance an evil. One of the roots of my happiness and enjoyment is the belief that my wife is faithful to me. Let's say that is a lie; what i don't have knowledge of is (hypothetically speaking) that she has been unfaithful to me since the day we met and had no intention or ever being faithful. If I acquired that knowledge, I would be miserable and in despair for as long as I exist and have any memory of her and that knowledge. In what way would acquiring that knowledge be a good thing? My ability to enjoy life or be happy at all would be utterly, inescapably ruined. You might say that my happiness and enjoyment was all based on a lie; so what? The experience of happiness and joy is what it is whether it is based on ignorance or not. The experience of misery and despair is what it is whether it is from knowledge or not. In what possible context is the gaining of that knowledge a "good" thing, much less "self-evidently" good, considering the consequences? William J Murray

SB: I have already dealt with that by explaining that the moral law, BY DEFINITION, is binding. WJM

If there is such a thing as a moral law, this means that the conditions necessary for it to be identified as a law must exist (authority, consequences)

No, it doesn’t. This is a mere claim on your part. By definition, the moral law is binding, which means that you are morally obliged to follow it. Duty is part of (built into) the codes moral structure.

And yes, if those conditions are met, the law is by definition “binding.” “Binding,” in this sense, means you will be held accountable and there will be consequences

There you go again, making up new definitions. Binding in that sense means morally obliged and nothing more. You are just plugging in your biases and prejudices into the definition.

”Binding” has no meaning absent the conditions.

Binding means binding regardless of conditions. You don’t get to arbitrarily change the definitions of words in my world.

If your moral code has no supervising authority that holds me accountable or consequences for disobeying it, it is pure sophistry with nothing that holds me accountable to it and I can completely ignore it with zero consequence.

So you keep saying, but saying it doesn’t make it so. You need to make your case. StephenB

SB said:

The same standards for absurdity that apply to logic also apply to natural law. It is absurd to deny the law of contradiction and it is equally absurd to deny the moral code.

No, it isn't.

To say that it is not wrong to murder is to utter an absurdity on the same level as A is not A.

I assume you're not talking about the legal sense of the word "murder" which comes with the conditions I've listed. The term "wrong" here necessarily imports or implies those conditions, in some way, fashion or sense, or else there is no way to identify that killing other people, say for your own personal gain, is actually wrong. It might feel bad to most people; such feelings do not identify it as actually wrong. Again, "wrongness" without the conditions I listed is pure sophistry and an appeal to how you or even most people subjectively feel about it.

The real problem is your hyperskepticism.

More mind-reading.

I'd remind him that the law of identity means that A=A refers to a particular, instantaneous state, not a range of states as described by something going trough a "flux" process.

How would you respond when they say to you about the Laws of identity and non-contradiction the same thing that you say to KF and I about the law of morality, namely that contradictions are not absurdities.

I'd be happy to leave the word "absurdity" out of the conversation because it is often employed ambiguously or rhetorically.

Indeed, I personally could assume a hyperskeptic posture and challenge any argument you make about the integrity of logic.

Sure you could, but that is not what I do or have done. I have always agreed with the fundamental principles of logic as being absolute. You and KF are attempting to make the case that "moral duties" are equally self-evident; I'm countering that with a logical argument (using those logical principles) that to identify your "A" as the "A" you claim it to be, you must, logically, identify the conditions necessary for that identification. Like the example in the adopted sibling I offered above, an "A" cannot be identified as an actual duty that one actually has without providing the conditions that make that behavior dutiful in nature.

Among other things, I could use your own rhetorical devices and insist that my world is different from your world in the sense that it doesn’t require rationality.

I'm not in control of your behavior, SB. Do as you wish :) William J Murray

WJM, duty is not equal to judgement and penalty. Though, ever, folly, evil, wickedness have chaotic consequences. There is such a thing as doing the right and honourable thing just because it is that. That is enough for a first point. KF kairosfocus

This is why a moral “should” (duty, in the universal and objective sense) is not and cannot be “self-evidently true:” duties cannot be identified or apprehended absent the conditions that are necessary to identify an actual duty as actually being in effect.

The same standards for absurdity that apply to logic also apply to natural law. It is absurd to deny the law of contradiction and it is equally absurd to deny the moral code. To say that it is not wrong to murder is to utter an absurdity on the same level as A is not A. The real problem is your hyperskepticism. How would you approach the process philosophers, such as Hegel, who denied the law of contradiction on the grounds that everything, including identity, is in flux. How would you respond when they say to you about the Laws of identity and non-contradiction the same thing that you say to KF and I about the law of morality, namely that contradictions are not absurdities. You would be dealing with the same kind of nonsense that KF and I have to deal with every day.. Each time you tried to make a rational statement about logic, they would offer a WJM-type of response (that may be true in your world, but not in mine). Indeed, I personally could assume a hyperskeptic posture and challenge any argument you make about the integrity of logic. Among other things, I could use your own rhetorical devices and insist that my world is different from your world in the sense that it doesn't require rationality. Or, I could appeal to the ever changing theory of evolution or some kooky interpretation of quantum mechanics.. I could change the definition of logic or claim that it means something different for me than it does for you. Under those circumstances, any attempt on your part to defend logic would be like chasing after the wind., which is what KF and I experience whenever we try to reason with you. StephenB

SB said:

SB: You can stand by it all you like, but you have not made a case for it.

Of course I have. Just because you don't find my case compelling or convincing doesn't mean I haven't made a case for it.

I have already dealt with that by explaining that the moral law, BY DEFINITION, is binding.

If there is such a thing as a moral law, this means that the conditions necessary for it to be identified as a law must exist (authority, consequences) And yes, if those conditions are met, the law is by definition "binding." "Binding," in this sense, means you will be held accountable and there will be consequences

The binding element is part of its essence, which means that the duty to follow it is built into the moral framework.

"Binding" has no meaning absent the conditions.

If the moral code against murder (unjustified killing) )really exists, then we are again, by definition, morally obliged to follow it.

I'm not "obliged" to do anything absent the conditions that make me obliged.

To say that the moral code exists is the same as saying that it ought to be followed.

Anyone can write or establish a "code of behavior" and it would exist. I am only obliged to obey the code if the conditions I have listed exist. Otherwise, it's just a list of suggestions.

This is what the moral code says about its own essence. It has nothing to do with authority or consequences and your claims to the contrary do not make it so. You have not made your case.

If your moral code has no supervising authority that holds me accountable or consequences for disobeying it, it is pure sophistry with nothing that holds me accountable to it and I can completely ignore it with zero consequence. William J Murray