this didn't happen until...

[helene_t]

If you decide to read about this kind of thing, the old books by Russell and/or Whitehead were once my favorites.

Thanks, I will check next time I visit my dad or bbo member athan010, they both have a nice collection of philosophy books.

[kenberg]

"The two tallest trees" differ, as a rule, from "the two oldest trees" only when one considers the hypothetical event that they were not the same. I think.

Often we work with set-defining rules without knowing the precise membership of the set. Sometimes the specific membership varies over time for a given rule. It would be inconvenient for two different rules to be interchangeable at one time and not interchangeable at another.

 

For these reasons (and more) I personally find it useful to distinguish between the rules and the members of the set. Consequently I'm prejudiced toward the opinion that this distinction reflects reality.

 

But I'm also interested in learning about the situations in which making this distinction is a hindrance.

 

If you decide to read about this kind of thing, the old books by Russell and/or Whitehead were once my favorites.

Although this discussion appears (and is) a bit arcane there are some practical aspects. A typical beginning calculus book, attempting rigor, defines a function to be a rule. Whatever the pedagogical benefits (none, I think) it illustrates this problem: The following two rules define the same function on the domain of real numbers:

 

Rule 1: Take the absolute value of x, defined as being x when x is positive or zero and minus x when x is negative.

 

Rule 2: Square x and take the non-negative square root.

 

In any reasonable usage of the English language the two rules are different. By what I think would be universal agreement in the mathematical community, the functions are the same since the rules produce the same result when applied to any real number x (the negative of negative 2 is 2, the positive square root of the square of negative 2 is 2).

 

I realize not everyone knows or cares about mathematics but I present it as a way of putting a practical face on abstract speculation. That's a role that is rarely expected from mathematics.

[helene_t]

A typical beginning calculus book, attempting rigor, defines a function to be a rule.

This is funny, at primary school we learned that a function was a set of ordered pairs (x,y) so that no x was associated with more than one y (the more general concept, a relation, does not have that restriction). I don't remember how a function was defined at secondary school but at university for some reason the distinction was made between a function and its graph, I suppose two functions with the same graph would be considered identical but I am not quite sure about that,

[Winstonm]

I thought a function was the school dance. :)

[kenberg]

I thought a function was the school dance. :)

For the most part, mathematicians don't dance very well so we changed that.

[Winstonm]

I thought a function was the school dance.  :ph34r:

For the most part, mathematicians don't dance very well so we changed that.

Then it sounds to me like mathematicians are the root of square. :)

[luke warm]

Are the deaths of the civilians in Afghanistan from drones dropping bombs morally justified?

indiscriminate killing is objectively immoral but can be morally justified

Is killing as self-defense morally justified?

killing in self-defense is objectively immoral but can be morally justified

Is capital punishment morally justified?

capital punishment is objectively immoral but can be morally justified... i'm saying that i consider your 3 examples to all be objectively immoral, but that there are those who can justify them in a moral sense... any time you can say "sometimes" or "it depends" then there is subjectivity at play... if there is subjectivity at play, nothing is inherently immoral, it all depends - on who is in power, on a consensus of opinion, or on any number of things

[Winstonm]

capital punishment is objectively immoral but can be morally justified... i'm saying that i consider your 3 examples to all be objectively immoral, but that there are those who can justify them in a moral sense... any time you can say "sometimes" or "it depends" then there is subjectivity at play... if there is subjectivity at play, nothing is inherently immoral, it all depends - on who is in power, on a consensus of opinion, or on any number of things

 

I asked these questions not as a trap but because they are genuine questions in my own mind - even when considered from a totally subjective worldview.

 

I may misunderstand, but I do not grasp how if something is objectively immoral it can be justified and thus made morally acceptable. Doesn't this violate that idea that A=A, and also the concept that "if p, not q"? I can answer for you - of course, it does but you are not making that claim.

 

OK. I believe you. You are saying that the actions are always immoral - but some people (not you) believe them justified, so to those people morality is subjective.

 

But if morality can be viewed differently by different viewpoints, it cannot be objective unless one group is wrong in their view.

 

I believe logic concludes that morality cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time?

[mikeh]

if morality is evolved, as mike says, then it is subjective... if subjective, it is conventional... to use a very tired analogy, at one time (even now, i suppose) one group of people thought it was right, maybe even good, to destroy the jewish race... now another group thought it was bad (or wrong)... what that means, if morality is subjective, is that destroying the jewish race is either good or bad depending on ones culture or, if might does make right, on who wins

 

You keep doing the same thing, it seems to me, in all of your posts. You make an argument based on a premise that is assumed to be valid, without acknowledging that you have done so... and without acknowledging (recognizing?) that those to whom you are replying don't necessarily accept your premise.

 

Thus you take my suggestion that what we perceive as a moral sense is evolved, then state that 'then it is subjective'. Why?

 

Of course, we can get into an interminable and almost certainly doomed debate about what 'objective' means in this context. But in the sense that there is an evolved part of our moral sense... that would, in my view, be 'objective' in the sense that it developes through the patterns of cellular development, growth, and interconnectivity of our brains. In any given infant, the pattern will, according to my limited reading, be influenced by environmental factors... alcohol use by the mother, other nutritional factors, and so on, will impact the development of the brain in the fetus, and nutritional and other environmental factors will impact the brain in the developing infant, on a physical level... I am not, in this sense, referring to cultural factors.

 

So physical factors having a biological impact on the growth of the brain will influence the extent to which the moral sense (and any other hard-wired capacity) may be expressed, but, assuming a healthy environment, and allowing for some degree of variation due to genetic mixes, I can see that the child will have within itself, due to the patterns into which the brain grew as a result of biology, a basic and largely uniform-across-the-species moral compass. This is 'objective' in my view. It is not generated by consensus or culture.

 

This would usually tell parents that it is wrong to kill their own children.. that it is right to risk their own lives for their children. How far this goes, I don't know.

 

It appears to be almost universal that one would not physically push a stranger into the path of a moving train in order to save a group of strangers further down the track. It appears less clear that it is universal to refrain from diverting the train down a track where it would kill that same stranger, in order to save that same group on the original track.

 

So it seems to me, again recognizing my limited reading, that the basic moral sense is akin to an available but not well-defined set of rules, that awaits and is suited for expansion by cultural learning.

 

This is why, it seems to me, that some behaviours that appeared to be moral in one era are now viewed as repugnant.

 

Jimmy, you say that indiscriminate killing is always objectively immoral.

 

But, consider your religion... I gather that you are a form of Christian.

 

In the battles between sects in the early centuries, it was considered morally right to slaughter those who preferred a slightly different set of dogmas. Later, heretics were burnt at the stake, with fervent and no doubt heartfelt and sincere prayers being offered, by the executioners, for the soul of the heretics.

 

Read any of the stories of the Conquistadors and it is apparent that the indiscriminate slaughter of tens of thousands of natives in Central America was morally appropriate (I am not referring to the accidental genocide inflicted by the infectious diseases carried by the invaders).

 

People (including devout Christians) once boiled cats alive as a form of entertainment. People routinely tortured others in an effort to make them resile from certain unpopular beliefs. Slavery was an unobjectionable practice for almost every culture for almost all of recorded history. Women were and remain in many cultures property of the male (the Western tradition of the father 'giving away' the bride is not called that for no reason.. the daughter was the father's property until the wedding, when she became her husband's property... and the Christian church endorsed this view.. and, in a number of sects, still does today).

 

Anyone who claims that he now knows what is 'morally right' and that this world-view has always been 'right' is either ignorant of history or profoundly egocentric.

 

The truth appears to be that the vast majority of the christians who have ever lived prior to the last couple of centuries would have strongly disagreed with much of what we view as morally inappropriate. If it is possible that they, believers as they were, had a faulty moral sense, viewed 'objectively', what makes anyone today sure that they themselves are 'right'? All I can say is that such a worldview strikes me as the height of arrogance.

[mike777]

"The origin of religious belief is something of a mystery, but in recent years scientists have started to make suggestions. One leading idea is that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation. In this view, shared religious belief helped our ancestors form tightly knit groups that cooperated in hunting, foraging and childcare, enabling these groups to outcompete others. In this way, the theory goes, religion was selected for by evolution, and eventually permeated every human society (New Scientist, 28 January 2006, p 30)"

 

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012...reates-god.html

 

 

"....The religion-as-an-adaptation theory doesn't wash with everybody, however. As anthropologist Scott Atran of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor points out, the benefits of holding such unfounded beliefs are questionable, in terms of evolutionary fitness. "I don't think the idea makes much sense, given the kinds of things you find in religion," he says. A belief in life after death, for example, is hardly compatible with surviving in the here-and-now and propagating your genes. Moreover, if there are adaptive advantages of religion, they do not explain its origin, but simply how it spread.

 

An alternative being put forward by Atran and others is that religion emerges as a natural by-product of the way the human mind works.

 

That's not to say that the human brain has a "god module" in the same way that it has a language module that evolved specifically for acquiring language. Rather, some of the unique cognitive capacities that have made us so successful as a species also work together to create a tendency for supernatural thinking. "There's now a lot of evidence that some of the foundations for our religious beliefs are hard-wired," says Bloom.

 

Much of that evidence comes from experiments carried out on children, who are seen as revealing a "default state" of the mind that persists, albeit in modified form, into adulthood. "Children the world over have a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work, and this early developing receptivity continues to anchor our intuitive thinking throughout life," says anthropologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford.

 

So how does the brain conjure up gods? One of the key factors, says Bloom, is the fact that our brains have separate cognitive systems for dealing with living things - things with minds, or at least volition - and inanimate objects.

 

This separation happens very early in life. Bloom and colleagues have shown that babies as young as five months make a distinction between inanimate objects and people. Shown a box moving in a stop-start way, babies show surprise. But a person moving in the same way elicits no surprise. To babies, objects ought to obey the laws of physics and move in a predictable way. People, on the other hand, have their own intentions and goals, and move however they choose.

 

Mind and matter

Bloom says the two systems are autonomous, leaving us with two viewpoints on the world: one that deals with minds, and one that handles physical aspects of the world. He calls this innate assumption that mind and matter are distinct ....."

[PassedOut]

The following two rules define the same function on the domain of real numbers:

 

Rule 1: Take the absolute value of x, defined as being x when x is positive or zero and minus x when x is negative.

 

Rule 2: Square x and take the non-negative square root.

 

In any reasonable usage of the English language the two rules are different. By what I think would be universal agreement in the mathematical community, the functions are the same since the rules produce the same result when applied to any real number x (the negative of negative 2 is 2, the positive square root of the square of negative 2 is 2).

When two rules always define the same set, I certainly agree that the rules themselves are interchangeable.

 

But it's hard to imagine people who don't even care about mathematics.

[helene_t]

The truth appears to be that the vast majority of the christians who have ever lived prior to the last couple of centuries would have strongly disagreed with much of what we view as morally inappropriate. If it is possible that they, believers as they were, had a faulty moral sense, viewed 'objectively', what makes anyone today sure that they themselves are 'right'? All I can say is that such a worldview strikes me as the height of arrogance.

My not so humble opinion is that modern ethics is, by and large, better suited for our modern society than, say, medieval ethics would be. Thanks to immigration, travel and online communities we have relatives, or at least friends and/or relatives of neighbors, who have different religion, skin color and ethnicity than we. This means that ethics must preserve a global community, not only our own tribe.

 

There are some who say that modern ethics is perverted by our distance from our natural environment and that the noble savage is morally superior, but that view is simply wrong. If it was based on different values than the ones I happen to hold I should add an IMHO here - but I think it's based on misinformation rather than different core values.

 

It is likely that in the future, ethics will be even more adapted to the global community, and that our grand-grandchildren will consider us barbarians when reading about us in history books. Much like they will consider our science and technology old-fashioned. (And our clothes, and entertainment products). But so far, we are at the height of history wrt science and technology, and I think it's reasonable to say that we are, by and large, also at the height of history wrt ethics.

 

Btw, I love those Pinker references in your post. Pinker uses science rather than armchair philosophy to study morality, that is really cool! The observations of children's worldviews, quoted by Mike777, are discussed in Pinker's books also.

[mike777]

"and that our grand-grandchildren will consider us barbarians when reading about us in history books."

 

 

 

 

It is something easy to say.. kill that guy over there make one a "barbarian" OTOH ..they may think it is 100% natural..

 

If history seems silly to you then read the future...."The Road"

[matmat]

<something> is objectively immoral but can be morally justified

sorry. I don't understand this.

 

are you saying that something can be objectively immoral and subjectively moral at the same time?

[luke warm]

capital punishment is objectively immoral but can be morally justified... i'm saying that i consider your 3 examples to all be objectively immoral, but that there are those who can justify them in a moral sense... any time you can say "sometimes" or "it depends" then there is subjectivity at play... if there is subjectivity at play, nothing is inherently immoral, it all depends - on who is in power, on a consensus of opinion, or on any number of things

I may misunderstand, but I do not grasp how if something is objectively immoral it can be justified and thus made morally acceptable. Doesn't this violate that idea that A=A, and also the concept that "if p, not q"? I can answer for you - of course, it does but you are not making that claim.

 

OK. I believe you. You are saying that the actions are always immoral - but some people (not you) believe them justified, so to those people morality is subjective.

 

But if morality can be viewed differently by different viewpoints, it cannot be objective unless one group is wrong in their view.

 

I believe logic concludes that morality cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time?

yes, that's what i'm saying.. i said that *i* consider those to be objectively immoral but that *some* might attempt to morally justify them... take self-defense, for example... it's my view that taking a life in self-defense is, from Jesus' pov, immoral... that doesn't mean that you or any number of people posting cannot justify such an action to her own satisfaction... but the justification of an act to oneself has no bearing on its objective morality, imo

[luke warm]

if morality is evolved, as mike says, then it is subjective... if subjective, it is conventional... to use a very tired analogy, at one time (even now, i suppose) one group of people thought it was right, maybe even good, to destroy the jewish race... now another group thought it was bad (or wrong)... what that means, if morality is subjective, is that destroying the jewish race is either good or bad depending on ones culture or, if might does make right, on who wins

 

You keep doing the same thing, it seems to me, in all of your posts. You make an argument based on a premise that is assumed to be valid, without acknowledging that you have done so... and without acknowledging (recognizing?) that those to whom you are replying don't necessarily accept your premise.

then all you have to do is offer another explanation... sorry, i don't have time at the moment to get to the rest

[hrothgar]

Interesting article

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

[mikeh]

if morality is evolved, as mike says, then it is subjective... if subjective, it is conventional... to use a very tired analogy, at one time (even now, i suppose) one group of people thought it was right, maybe even good, to destroy the jewish race... now another group thought it was bad (or wrong)... what that means, if morality is subjective, is that destroying the jewish race is either good or bad depending on ones culture or, if might does make right, on who wins

 

You keep doing the same thing, it seems to me, in all of your posts. You make an argument based on a premise that is assumed to be valid, without acknowledging that you have done so... and without acknowledging (recognizing?) that those to whom you are replying don't necessarily accept your premise.

then all you have to do is offer another explanation... sorry, i don't have time at the moment to get to the rest

1. I already did.. the fact that you don't like it is not in and of itself a reason to reject it.

 

2. It is in my view often appropriate to acknowledge that as a species we are still in our relative infancy in terms of understanding both the internal and the external universe. Religion was an early and ignorance-based effort to explain aspects of our experience, inaccessible to more cogent ideas because we lacked the physical and intellectual tools to investigate alternatives. We are in the process of acquiring them. So, let's grant the argument that the ideas I have referred to are incomplete, and that they need more research before they can be affirmed or modified or rejected... why is that any reason to hold onto ideas that are inherently less susceptible to verification/falsification? Why expect us to have a complete answer to complex issues at this time in our history... when many are still living convinced of supernatural fantasy, and those of us who are free of that intellectual hobble are still learning to explore the world? Religion gives 'complete' explanations only when one never tries to look behind the curtain. Science gives incomplete answers because we haven't finished asking questions yet.

[y66]

If someone acknowledges that something which is not morally justifiable in their belief system can be morally justifiable in a different belief system, then it seems like there is room for discussion and some potential for mutual respect and harmony.

 

But if they then assert a hierarchy of belief systems in which their system is more perfectly aligned with true moral north than other systems, then I think they are just being disingenuous and condescending.

 

Whatever happened to fear and trembling?

[Winstonm]

i said that *i* consider those to be objectively immoral but that *some* might attempt to morally justify them

 

 

What follows is IMO:

 

Yes, in your view morality is binary - the circuit is either off or on - black or white. A person's actions are either right or wrong. Rigidity of this nature forces a judgement of others, whether recognized or not.

 

Whereas you "know" killing to be immoral, others who kill can only "attempt to justify" their actions. You (must be) right. They (must be) wrong.

 

That is judging. It is unavoidable in a rigid binary worldview.

 

The only way to not judge is to say, well, they may be right or truly justified - but if that admission is made, it invalidates the concept of an objective morality worldview.

[jdonn]

<something> is objectively immoral but can be morally justified

sorry. I don't understand this.

 

are you saying that something can be objectively immoral and subjectively moral at the same time?

Good observation!

[PassedOut]

Interesting article

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true

Good link.

 

It's always been a mystery to me how people I knew to be very competent in other areas found it possible to accept without evidence the mythologies of their various cultures. Hope to see more real investigation of this.

 

I wonder also if these findings extend to those who hold strong beliefs in ideologies like communism and capitalism.

[helene_t]

I wonder also if these findings extend to those who hold strong beliefs in ideologies like communism and capitalism.

As a child I was brainwashed with marxism and I do see some similarities to religious brainwashing. But with respect to the New Scientist article, I think the answer is no. Marxism did use some of the tricks employed by other religions, such as the idea that you have to suffer during the socialist phase in order to earn the right to enjoy the communist paradise, but the innate belief in teleology, as addressed in the article, does not have a parallel in marxism, as far as I can see. Maybe that was the reason why Marxism was not very successful as a religion.

[PassedOut]

Maybe that was the reason why Marxism was not very successful as a religion.

I'm sure you are right. There must be some better common explanation for the intense true believer types, no matter what particular belief they hold.

[luke warm]

if morality is evolved, as mike says, then it is subjective... if subjective, it is conventional... to use a very tired analogy, at one time (even now, i suppose) one group of people thought it was right, maybe even good, to destroy the jewish race... now another group thought it was bad (or wrong)... what that means, if morality is subjective, is that destroying the jewish race is either good or bad depending on ones culture or, if might does make right, on who wins

 

You keep doing the same thing, it seems to me, in all of your posts. You make an argument based on a premise that is assumed to be valid, without acknowledging that you have done so... and without acknowledging (recognizing?) that those to whom you are replying don't necessarily accept your premise.

then all you have to do is offer another explanation... sorry, i don't have time at the moment to get to the rest

1. I already did.. the fact that you don't like it is not in and of itself a reason to reject it.

 

2. It is in my view often appropriate to acknowledge that as a species we are still in our relative infancy in terms of understanding both the internal and the external universe. Religion was an early and ignorance-based effort to explain aspects of our experience, inaccessible to more cogent ideas because we lacked the physical and intellectual tools to investigate alternatives. We are in the process of acquiring them. So, let's grant the argument that the ideas I have referred to are incomplete, and that they need more research before they can be affirmed or modified or rejected... why is that any reason to hold onto ideas that are inherently less susceptible to verification/falsification? Why expect us to have a complete answer to complex issues at this time in our history... when many are still living convinced of supernatural fantasy, and those of us who are free of that intellectual hobble are still learning to explore the world? Religion gives 'complete' explanations only when one never tries to look behind the curtain. Science gives incomplete answers because we haven't finished asking questions yet.

mike, all i ever said is that i can account for certain abstract entities from within my worldview while maintaining internal consistency while i haven't yet seen an atheistic worldview able to do the same... that's all

If someone acknowledges that something which is not morally justifiable in their belief system can be morally justifiable in a different belief system, then it seems like there is room for discussion and some potential for mutual respect and harmony.

maybe, but i didn't say that

i said that *i* consider those to be objectively immoral but that *some* might attempt to morally justify them

What follows is IMO:

 

Yes, in your view morality is binary - the circuit is either off or on - black or white. A person's actions are either right or wrong. Rigidity of this nature forces a judgement of others, whether recognized or not.

 

Whereas you "know" killing to be immoral, others who kill can only "attempt to justify" their actions. You (must be) right. They (must be) wrong.

 

That is judging. It is unavoidable in a rigid binary worldview.

 

The only way to not judge is to say, well, they may be right or truly justified - but if that admission is made, it invalidates the concept of an objective morality worldview.

winston, is there nothing that you can say is objectively immoral? i hate giving examples but i don't know any other way to do it... in your view, is the rape and torture of children, in and of itself, immoral? or is your answer that it's a gray area? and fwiw i didn't judge anyone... if i read that john doe had killed an intruder and said something like "well it's straight to hell for him," that would be judgmental

<something> is objectively immoral but can be morally justified

sorry. I don't understand this.

 

are you saying that something can be objectively immoral and subjectively moral at the same time?

Good observation!

it might be if it hadn't already been answered, first by winston then by me