Let's Talk About "Oughts"

[seer]

I think you have a strange idea about what the word 'subjective' means.

Perhaps, but I look at it this way; you and I want reasonable speed limits for all the basic, known reasons. We have a specific goal, which for the most part is safety. But the anarchist has a different goal - absolute freedom, even if safety is sacrificed. These goals are subjective - agreed? BTW - I don't have a problem with relative laws, heck we find relative law in scripture.

[seer]

Considering the necessary existent, whatever pertains to its nature is eternal and therefore is not in need of an intelligence in order for it to exist. In other words if oughts are absolute, whether they pertain to an eternal God or to an eternal Universe they are subjective considering the whole as a being in itself, but objective when considering the parts therein. I think! So I think that maybe the answer would be #3, they are brute facts.

Well no, if moral "oughts" are eternal then they would have to exist in an eternal mind. Moral oughts do not exist in in non-intelligent matter and energy. How could they?

[shunyadragon]

If there is anything that could be called 'design' in nature that does not have intent, goals etc then I don't think it would generate oughts for the creature like it would in the manner I'm talking about.

This is an important point in the discussion as to what is necessary for the existence of 'oughts' in morality. Many traditional theist hold this view, but I do not think there is a good argument for it that would exclude 'oughts' coming about naturally through evolution in the behavior of humans and other mammals like other primates and sea mammals.

I myself believe all things are created by the 'Source' some call God(s), but find this and many theist arguments not convincing, based on the evidence.

[seer]

Many traditional theist hold this view, but I do not think there is a good argument for it that would exclude 'oughts' coming about naturally through evolution in the behavior of humans and other mammals like other primates and sea mammals.

Of course there are no natural oughts, it is just silly on its face. Nature cares nothing about "oughts." As we discussed, for oughts to be valid they must be linked to goals, and the evolutionary process has no goals.

[phaedrus]

Perhaps, but I look at it this way; you and I want reasonable speed limits for all the basic, known reasons. We have a specific goal, which for the most part is safety. But the anarchist has a different goal - absolute freedom, even if safety is sacrificed. These goals are subjective - agreed? BTW - I don't have a problem with relative laws, heck we find relative law in scripture.

But you use the word 'subjective' as a synonym for 'meaningless' or 'without foundation'. Human based morality can be both meaningful to the society and its individual members and founded on principles of natural consequences and optimal outcomes.

[shunyadragon]

Of course there are no natural oughts, it is just silly on its face. Nature cares nothing about "oughts." As we discussed, for oughts to be valid they must be linked to goals, and the evolutionary process has no goals.

'As we discussed . . .?, No.

[JimL]

Well no, if moral "oughts" are eternal then they would have to exist in an eternal mind. Moral oughts do not exist in in non-intelligent matter and energy. How could they?

Well, First of all we have yet to conclude that moral oughts in the objective sense exist, but if they do exist, then whether we attribute those "oughts" to an eternal mind, or to an eternal universe, being that they are eternal, they are brute facts. Now, I think that we would need to define why if they exist eternally, would they need to be the nature of an eternal mind, rather than the nature of an eternal universe? If they are eternal, and being so are brute facts consistent with the nature of the eternally existing entity, why would that eternal entity need be a mind?

[phaedrus]

Here's something interesting (I think) which may prove relevant to the discussion. A good deal of psychological research is going on into how and why people choose certain moral principles.

There is an interesting site http://www.yourmorals.org/ on which you can register and take several surveys to reveal what moral dimensions you value when making moral decisions. It ties in with http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php

I took the moral foundations test and my results are shown below:

In the graph below, your scores on each foundation are shown in green (the 1st bar in each set of 3 bars). The scores of all liberals who have taken it on our site are shown in blue (the 2nd bar), and the scores of all conservatives are shown in red (3rd bar). Scores run from 0 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that foundation) to 5 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that foundation and build much of your morality on top of it).

Turns out I out-liberal most liberals!

[seer]

But you use the word 'subjective' as a synonym for 'meaningless' or 'without foundation'. Human based morality can be both meaningful to the society and its individual members and founded on principles of natural consequences and optimal outcomes.

No, not quite. The question is - what outcome? Whose outcomes? Our history is replete with different ethical systems. The Romans had theirs, Stalin and his followers theirs, Hitler and his followers theirs, etc... So the desired outcomes are completely subjective. I'm not saying they are completely meaningless - I'm sure that totalitarianism is meaningful for those in power - just subjective.

[seer]

Well, First of all we have yet to conclude that moral oughts in the objective sense exist, but if they do exist, then whether we attribute those "oughts" to an eternal mind, or to an eternal universe, being that they are eternal, they are brute facts. Now, I think that we would need to define why if they exist eternally, would they need to be the nature of an eternal mind, rather than the nature of an eternal universe? If they are eternal, and being so are brute facts consistent with the nature of the eternally existing entity, why would that eternal entity need be a mind?

Jim, moral ideas are just that - ideas. Ideas do not exist in matter and energy as far as I know, unless you have evidence of the contrary. Moral ideas require language (try forming a moral proposition without language) . So as far as I can tell moral thought requires a rational mind.

[seer]

'As we discussed . . .?, No.

Then explain how "oughts" can be valid apart from goals, and tell us where you find goals in the evolutionary process. If not, what are you claiming?

[seer]

Here's something interesting (I think) which may prove relevant to the discussion. A good deal of psychological research is going on into how and why people choose certain moral principles.


Turns out I out-liberal most liberals!

Boy, I certainly am a conservative...

[shunyadragon]

Then explain how "oughts" can be valid apart from goals, and tell us where you find goals in the evolutionary process. If not, what are you claiming?

The goal is the survival of the species.

Moral oughts simply evolve to meet the needs of social animals to survive.

[shunyadragon]

Jim, moral ideas are just that - ideas. Ideas do not exist in matter and energy as far as I know, unless you have evidence of the contrary. Moral ideas require language (try forming a moral proposition without language) . So as far as I can tell moral thought requires a rational mind.

The human mind, in the case of the human species.

[seer]

The human mind, in the case of the human species.

How can you have moral thinking or moral intentions without a rational mind? Or language?