My latest moral argument.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 124
#91
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
The origin of human telos would be evolution, not the human mind. This is where the knife analogy breaks down. Everything has a telos, even things that existed before we were around, and that telos is part of what that thing is. Knives are a type of thing created by people, and thus the telos of a knife is created by people (but once said telos exists, what makes a knife a good knife is an objective fact). Humans, on the other hand, are the product of evolution and thus our telos comes about through natural evolution, thus what the telos of a human is exists independently of our thoughts on the matter. We might have to study in order to learn the details of what, precisely, our telos is, but it is still entirely natural.
#92
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,314
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
#91

Sort of a melange of ideas not quite attaining a telos.
#93
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If the telos of morality comes directly from evolution, it doesn't make sense that it would act in opposition to it. I think, at best, you could say evolution gave us a proto-morality, and human minds have expanded it beyond paths evolution could/would have selected for. 
#94
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
it doesn't make sense that it would act in opposition to it.
Can you expand on what you mean by this?
#95
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Yes. If morality came directly from evolution, wouldn't things like antibiotics (which shield individuals from natural selection) be immoral?
#96
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Not at all. Just because our telos was brought about by evolution does not mean evolution holds any sort of special place (it gets close to a genetic fallacy if this point is pushed).
As I pointed out earlier, it seems to be that the four main parts of our telos are:
  1. Survival of self
  2. Survival of species (usually through reproduction)
  3. Characteristic and Systematic Enjoyment & Freedom from Pain
  4. The Good Functioning of the Social Group
Antibiotics help with all four of these points, and as such are a great moral good.

Just because our telos comes about due to evolution does not mean evolution itself is a good thing

#97
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Let's look at this from a different perspective. How does the fact of evolution lead us to moral conclusions? (Non-sequitor) How are you getting around the is/ought problem?

#98
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Dr. Alistar MacIntryre denies that the is-ought gap is a problem under the telos model.
The argument is, essentially,
P1) If there exists a human telos, then a good human can exist
P2) There exists a human telos.
C) A good human can exist.

The goodness is measured against the telos, and so just like we can know based on the telos of a knife that a good knife needs to be able to cut well (measuring the state of something against its telos) so to can we know that a human is good based on measuring against the human telos.

In this, we have an understanding of what makes one good or not and don't ever have to introduce a single 'ought' into the equation, everything is just based on what is. But now that we have what is "good" that means that normative facts exist (due to the existence of the "good" and normative ethics), and the is-ought problem does not apply to normative facts. It also leads to doing the good being inherently rational, and thus if one chooses to do things contrary to the good they are being irrational in doing so.

But, full disclosure, I am not as well read on this part of metaethics. I have a few books on my list to buy at the next convenient moment in order to gain a better understanding, but as it is at the moment I wouldn't be able to go into too much detail. Most of my knowledge comes from lectures, sci-hub, and talking with PhD ethicists and grad students.
#99
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If I understand it correctly, MacIntryre is saying a 'natural ought' exists and we can draw moral conclusions from it.  It's not clear to me how that works. Is he making an ought into an is to get contigent oughts?

I also am having trouble with the notion that evolution provides us with a moral telos. Morality is not required for the individual or species to survive.  Neither is freedom from pain. Morality is required for cooperative groups to exist, but nothing in evolution requires groups be all members of a species. Too much tribalism is not a good thing... if it is a good thing at all.

#100
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think the issue is that you think we have a 'moral telos' when that isn't the case. We, like everything, have a telos. You wouldn't say that it is moral for a knife to be able to cut well but yet it is a fact that a good knife is one that cuts well, as that is adhering to the telos of the knife. It is the same in regards to a good human. Morality is just what we call that same thing when applied to humans.

If humans evolved a telos of being extremely individual and very selfish rather than in the social direction we did then what would be good would be different. Charity, for example, would no longer be considered good. This also means that judging another species based on what is good for humans would be misplaced, as they have a different telos.

What our particular telos is came about due to evolution, but that doesn't mean that we evolved to be moral. That is a type of statement that confuses the metaethical systems and tries to apply a different concept of ethics onto the telos model.
#101
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Without a doubt, I don't understand the 'telos model'.  If being human is being moral (correct me if I am misrepresenting the concept), then were people 2000, 4000...10,000 years ago bad humans because they didn't share all of our moral precepts? 
#102
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
  If being human is being moral (correct me if I am misrepresenting the concept)
It isn't that being human is being moral, it is adhering to human telos.
A knife that cannot cut anything is still a knife, it just isn't a good one (in fact, it is objectively bad).

then were people 2000,
Fun fact, the telos model of morality/virtue ethics (which is currently the most accepted model by ethicists) ultimately is derived from Aristotle's morality (it is neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics).

4000...10,000 years ago bad humans because they didn't share all of our moral precepts? 
Not at all. People still tried to be virtuous back then, and moral progress is possible. Nothing about moral realism prevents moral progress from also being a thing. The issue is that we have limited knowledge, and as such the further back in time we go the less advanced the knowledge we can expect to see.

We don't look at today's knowledge about gravity and then say Newton was bad at science because he was wrong.
So to with moral advances. Yes, we know that what they conceived of as being moral was inaccurate, but within the framework of what knowledge they had access to there were many moral people.
They weren't bad, they were mistaken.
Just as we advance in other fields with increased epistemic access, we progress morally as well.

It should also be unsurprising if we find out that the people today that we find to be the most moral would be looked back upon in a thousand years of holding immoral beliefs of doing immoral actions, but that isn't a slight against the people today. We must act based on our current knowledge.

EDIT:
 I don't understand the 'telos model'.
I do apologize if I am not explaining it well enough. As I said earlier, I am still not too well read in this field. I have dedicated some time to it, but have a lot left to do before I would even be confident enough to do a debate on ethics.
#103
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,980
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
How many sets of these " Moral scales " exist.  ?

I know  John has a set.
As does paul and Rebecca.
If they all thought / felt the same way about things classed as moral or not moral  

They would have A agreed upon set of " moral scales "  thus being their own..

Now ten peoples " moral scales " to make one agreed upon set..
this may not occur 

Imagine  100 peoples ( agreed upon moral scales )    
This wouldn't occur with 100 ( random ) people. 

So its.
Name the acts that ARE considered as boarder line moral. 

thats like. 
The Act of going down the road to get milk has nothing to do with being moral or immoral . 

What is the softest thing  that is only  just consider as  a moral act. 
What act just falls under the (  is it moral or not. ) 



 


Topic's author
#104
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I'm not just going to accept that whatever you tell me my purpose is must be my purpose and I can't imagine I could explain your purpose to you either. Each human must give themselves purpose and this is entirely subjective. This telos, if you gave one, is not an objective matter if it is dependent upon the subject. 
Topic's author
#105
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What makes a standard subjective?
Being dependent upon the opinion or perspective of some (not necessarily human) subject.
You do not justify a sphere is a sphere,
And yet you will find I think that you will be expected to justify your actions. 
Values and morals obviously do not exist in a universe without life
Because they depend upon some subject to hold/express them. Definitionally that is subjective. 
#106
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
All I can say at this point is read a book. You have no idea what you are talking about in regards to metaethics and yet act like you have all the answers. It is more productive to talk to a brick wall at this point, and so I see no reason to continue the discussion here.
Topic's author
#107
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Subjective merely means dependent upon the opinion or perspective of some subject. You simply haven't done anything to convince me that humans have a purpose that isn't dependent upon the opinion and/or perspective of some human(s).

If you have some alternative definition of subjective or you would like to reformulate your argument with this definition in mind you are welcome to but under this definition of subjective any purpose is subjective. Purpose is a thing that is dependent upon the subject. 

Repeatedly insisting that this is not e will not change anything. 
#108
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Would you agree that humans are more likely than not, to fall into certain moral attitudes, based on their nature?
Topic's author
#109
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
All organisms have genetic predispositions to some behaviors. Humans are no different. 
#110
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,901
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
What makes a standard subjective?
Being dependent upon the opinion or perspective of some (not necessarily human) subject.
"secularmerlin has the capacity to form opinions and acts upon his/her opinions"

Is that a subjective statement?
Topic's author
#111
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Is this a matter of opinion or is it an independent observation? You can make objective statements about subjective matters so long as we agree to a particular subjective perspective for the purposes of the conversation. 
#112
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,901
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
Is this a matter of opinion or is it an independent observation? You can make objective statements about subjective matters so long as we agree to a particular subjective perspective for the purposes of the conversation. 
Yes, the way I explain it is that a subjective statement is simply an objective statement which has omitted the subject.

[1] Chocolate ice-cream is delicious <- subjective
[2] ADOL believes chocolate ice-cream is delicious <- objective

"delicious" is a concept defined by a subject. It is always "delicious to whom", just as words like "necessary", "important", "sacred" must necessarily reference a goal, outcome, or state of being.

[3] The moon orbits the earth <- objective
[4] ADOL believes the moon orbits the earth <- objective

[3] can be objective while [1] cannot because there are no unfilled subject slots implied by the concepts at play. A subjective statement is never true or false because it is always malformed (in the strict logical sense).

Now that we have that down, we can see that the concept of value does have a subject slot; but we can also see that this does not mean there are no objective statements about values and consequently formal logic can operate on the concept of values and produce conclusions that all rational subjects are obliged to agree with.

The next pertinent question is whether you can define a group of subjects such that certain values must exist. If you can do that, then you can through logic infer a code of behavior which achieves their universal value(s). That is an objective code of morality spanning a community, thus it is an objective social morality.
Topic's author
#113
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Movement is subjective to a perspective as well. We can only ever measure the movement of any object in relation to another object which we consider "stationary" for the purposes of the statement. You can make objective statements about moving objects only if we agree to a common standard of what is "stationary" and what is "in motion".
#114
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,901
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
Then perhaps it was a better analogy then I originally intended, as some reference frames complicate the problem and some simplify it. You could try to subjectivize the definition of orbit, but that will accomplish only confusion while removing vagueness in a way such as to create the most straightforward geometry/math is the objectively superior conception.

I can assure you that if you went to astronauts and told them to use the reference frame of the Tesla floating out there complete with rotation they would tell you to keep your sophistry out of their sight.
Topic's author
#115
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
While that is a fair assessment there is a difference between the two statements

"The moon orbits the earth"

And

"Lying is wrong even to protect someone's feelings" 

The difference is that one is an observation and the other is an opinion. 
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Are you a Utilitarian now?
everyone is a "utilitarian" they are simply loathe to admit it
#117
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
My stance remains that I am disinterested in the concept of morality and instead only in the effects of actions on human wellbeing and the public health. 
what factors do you believe are worth considering when the survival of two humans and or two groups of humans become mutually exclusive ?
#118
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I suppose people have values, goals, wants,
That they try to maximize,
Though often in conjunction with other values, goals, wants.
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"secularmerlin has the capacity to form opinions and acts upon his/her opinions"

Is that a subjective statement?
the essential implication is that "the speaker" has some evidence that leads them to believe (with some level of confidence) "secularmerlin has the capacity to form opinions and acts upon his/her opinions"

instead of any number of alternatives, including, but not restricted to, a hypothesis, such as "secularmerlin is in-fact a gpt3 which apparently has an uncanny ability to emulate opinions"

and as such,

the text you quoted would clearly qualify as "a subjective statement"

unless, of course, you and i are inadvertently working with two (perhaps similar but ultimately) incompatible definitions of "subjective"
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the statement, "secularmerlin has the capacity to form opinions and acts upon his/her opinions"

is essentially an unsubstantiated claim