Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Moral vs. Factual Belief

  1. #21
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,990
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post

    As to my charge of dogmatic parroting, see my emphasis above. I rest my case, Tassman.
    You haven’t made a case Anomaly. You’ve merely disagreed (without explaining why) with the scientific argument that morality and ethics are products of natural selection to enable our survival as cooperative intelligent social animals. Given that there is abundant evidence of this not only with humans but among other social species this is a bold move on your part. E.g. primatologist and ethologist prof. Frans de Waal: “on Political Apes, Science Communication, and Building a Cooperative Society.”

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...frans-de-waal/

    Why would you want to introduce the concept of divinely revealed morality into the argument?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  2. #22
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    132
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Well, that was a bit of a difficult read for an uneducated philosopher. But in so far as I understand you the question I have is what is the basis for the idea that the immutable form of morality upon which the mutable forms, or constructs if you will, arise, is external or distinct from the mutable forms. Take your example of gravity for instance. Why assume that the ultimate or immutable form of gravity, is not inherent in the nature of the universe itself? I equate morality with being those behaviors that best support the living conditions and survival of the group and I don't see how those behaviors would be dependent upon the existence of an external form.
    The non-contact forces may well proceed from matter itself. This is irrelevant to the point—a compatibilist configuration of the mutable under supervision of the immutable is expressed in the structure of the so-called “material universe”. The pattern remains whether natural or otherwise.

    As a theist and Christian I take the position that the moral realm (along with consciousness) is not natural in a materialistic sense and necessarily operates under the pattern laid out in the natural. But meanings here get blurry. For instance, if the hypothesis that value is an inherent dynamic within all information—which translates or conforms for all intents and purposes to the dualist doctrine that humans have both natural-material and spiritual-moral components of being—is true, then despite the fact that this is a marriage of categorical dissimilarities (a generally acceptable element of a theistic ontology) it would play out functionally in experience in time and space as though value is a natural component of the material. This would be so just because value, if the hypothesis holds, is a natural component of being.

    The basis of distinction between mutable and immutable forms is in the compatibilist structure: cause in the mutable is of the variety of transfer of contact between particulars while the term “non-contact forces” sums up the difference. Science has hypotheses for how non-material forces can affect matter, but a simple Google search indicates knowledgeable people don’t have or seem close to having an answer. The view of value defended in this thread is just a theoretical mechanism for the “non-contact” normative force truth would naturally impose on both the machinery of the material realm and the moral function in cognition.

    I think one reason folks run into a wall comprehending this might be because our training is restricted to holding quantitative empirical evidence in significantly higher esteem than qualitative proofs. If I’m only willing to grant the highest level of acceptance to the causal immediacy of particle interactions, then the notion of immaterial value as the base causal dynamic of both immediate/quantitative and moral/qualitative spheres will seem initially incoherent.

  3. #23
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    132
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    You haven’t made a case Anomaly. You’ve merely disagreed (without explaining why) with the scientific argument that morality and ethics are products of natural selection to enable our survival as cooperative intelligent social animals. Given that there is abundant evidence of this not only with humans but among other social species this is a bold move on your part. E.g. primatologist and ethologist prof. Frans de Waal: “on Political Apes, Science Communication, and Building a Cooperative Society.”

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...frans-de-waal/

    Why would you want to introduce the concept of divinely revealed morality into the argument?
    So you triumphantly post one of the five thousand papers on correlative evidence as truth? You are just the atheist version of the Christian who holds her doctrine to be the truth all other views and doctrines must conform to. Thanks for your contributions my friend.

  4. #24
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,990
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post

    As a theist and Christian I take the position that the moral realm (along with consciousness) is not natural in a materialistic sense and necessarily operates under the pattern laid out in the natural.

    But meanings here get blurry. For instance, if the hypothesis that value is an inherent dynamic within all information—which translates or conforms for all intents and purposes to the dualist doctrine that humans have both natural-material and spiritual-moral components of being—is true, then despite the fact that this is a marriage of categorical dissimilarities (a generally acceptable element of a theistic ontology) it would play out functionally in experience in time and space as though value is a natural component of the material. This would be so just because value, if the hypothesis holds, is a natural component of being.
    Yes, "IF".

    You have posited a hypothesis without justifying why - except that "as a theist and Christian" you like it - it should be taken seriously.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  5. #25
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,990
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    So you triumphantly post one of the five thousand papers on correlative evidence as truth? You are just the atheist version of the Christian who holds her doctrine to be the truth all other views and doctrines must conform to.
    You STILL haven’t made a case against the evidence that morality and ethics are the products of natural selection to enable our survival as cooperative intelligent social animals.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  6. #26
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,988
    Amen (Given)
    1956
    Amen (Received)
    1607
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
    The non-contact forces may well proceed from matter itself. This is irrelevant to the point—a compatibilist configuration of the mutable under supervision of the immutable is expressed in the structure of the so-called “material universe”. The pattern remains whether natural or otherwise.

    As a theist and Christian I take the position that the moral realm (along with consciousness) is not natural in a materialistic sense and necessarily operates under the pattern laid out in the natural. But meanings here get blurry. For instance, if the hypothesis that value is an inherent dynamic within all information—which translates or conforms for all intents and purposes to the dualist doctrine that humans have both natural-material and spiritual-moral components of being—is true, then despite the fact that this is a marriage of categorical dissimilarities (a generally acceptable element of a theistic ontology) it would play out functionally in experience in time and space as though value is a natural component of the material. This would be so just because value, if the hypothesis holds, is a natural component of being.
    Had to read it three times, but I think you need to define exactly what it is you mean by value or moral. You seem to be implying that they are things in themselves, laws of right or wrong behavior, that exist whether anything else existed or not. If nothing else existed, what would be the purpose for an immutable moral structure or pattern to exist. Just in case? In other words what need would there be for an immutable pattern of morality for life prior to the existence of life?
    The basis of distinction between mutable and immutable forms is in the compatibilist structure: cause in the mutable is of the variety of transfer of contact between particulars while the term “non-contact forces” sums up the difference. Science has hypotheses for how non-material forces can affect matter, but a simple Google search indicates knowledgeable people don’t have or seem close to having an answer. The view of value defended in this thread is just a theoretical mechanism for the “non-contact” normative force truth would naturally impose on both the machinery of the material realm and the moral function in cognition.
    While it's true that I done gradgiated the tenth grade, could you try to dumb it down just a bit.
    I think one reason folks run into a wall comprehending this might be because our training is restricted to holding quantitative empirical evidence in significantly higher esteem than qualitative proofs. If IÂ’m only willing to grant the highest level of acceptance to the causal immediacy of particle interactions, then the notion of immaterial value as the base causal dynamic of both immediate/quantitative and moral/qualitative spheres will seem initially incoherent.
    Surely you can put this in simpler terms. You know like "Morality for dummies."

  7. #27
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    132
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    I think you need to define exactly what it is you mean by value or moral. You seem to be implying that they are things in themselves, laws of right or wrong behavior, that exist whether anything else existed or not. If nothing else existed, what would be the purpose for an immutable moral structure or pattern to exist. Just in case?
    I don't think you're quite grabbing the idea of truth as I use it. Assuming truth is preexistent to the universe, the notion of "moral laws of right or wrong" is incoherent. For that matter, the Divine Command theory is incoherent on this view. God doesn't need to think up rules of right and wrong; truth itself is the determination, the absolute. When truth is falsified, tension and resistance arise...and this creates the concept of "morality". If all things were wholly true, the term morality would have no meaning. Do you see what I mean? Why would one need to act rightly in a wholly true scenario, given that truth's derivatives are all the "right" things: unity, love, accord, agreement, acceptance, etc. Truth leads to perfection, there's no room or need for morality in perfection.

    Okay. The entire thing boils down to:
    1. Truth is the only absolute.
    2. “Moral” is a term that represents degrees of truth/falsity in normative propositions. More accurately, morality is a measure of tension and resistance falsity provides to the truthbearingness of a proposition.
    3. Normative beliefs are composed of true and false elements because they’re complex….each claim requires subordinate propositions to form its conclusion.
    4. Although the set of beliefs in a personal worldview, because they are fragmentally falsified, can never attain certitude, at least some will have higher truth content than others. Thus, each normative belief is true in proportion to the cumulative truth and falsity of the propositions in its set. Every worldview stands only in some relation to truth. This demonstrates the compatibilist nature in both factual and moral spheres: truth is the absolute, and all that exists stands in relation to it. Value is the expression of this relationship. Even things and propositions that are measured against one another are still measured with respect to their truth content, which again places truth as the standard and absolute of all measurement.

    Yin and Yang. Human culture, motivation, choice, etc. is a struggle to overcome the false and make corrections toward the true.

    Mention of yin and yang is only illustrative. They were theoretical dualistic equals in early Chinese philosophy and were thought to complement and balance each other. Falsity, in comparison, could never be truth’s equal because where the derivatives of truth are goods, only evils come from falsity. Where the highest goods are arguably degrees of unity leading to life, the highest evils would be grades of chaos leading to death. It’s logically impossible to ever reach absolute falsity/evil because a thing falsified self destructs before it can attain absolute status.

    Might help to give my definition of value:

    Truth in an existent has natural reciprocal dispositions with truth in compatible entities, effecting proper organization and interactions between associated particulars. Truth’s dynamic in both factual and moral categories is a solicitation of unity, maintaining information’s persistent, stable or perseverant place in existence. This feature of congruent persistence would naturally generate derivations, i.e., goods from the true and evils from the false.

    The power of truth to induce proper function between existents operates under the administration of external force (Form) in various modes, resulting in the proper ordering of reality and production within this organization of characteristic functions—as in the dynamic organizational processes of autopoiesis. Truth functions to produce goods, i.e., unity, harmony, accord, concurrence, perfection, rightness, life, etc.

    Falsity is the opposite of truth, a corruption. Falsity is, like truth, an actual dynamic which produces evils or properties such as disunity, discord, repulsion, antimony, chaos and death.


    Value is the measure of the admixture of truth and falsity in a given particular or collection of particulars. For example the value of gold is measured in karats. It is true that 18 karat gold is 18/24ths or 75% gold and 25% other metals. Offering a bar containing 70% gold as an 18 karat product is false. The bar has been falsified with respect to the value “18 karat gold”. Cultural norms as integrated systems of beliefs and practices are morally “right or wrong” according to their statistical relation to absolute truth.

    (My use of “information” as value’s container is abstract and appears to create confusion in readers not used to the idea. I use information as the base of reality because it seems to be the sole connection between thing and attribute or perceptible/conceptual. Substance as the base of reality can’t overcome the divide between matter and its properties or “prescriptively inert” matter and the moral soul (no ought from is), but information can. Both material and immaterial objects present information to perception...this is the only connection between the two I can find. Whether they realize it or not, the theist’s ontology is [or should be] information-based while the atheist’s is substance-based, which creates imo the seemingly irredeemable ontic and epistemic divides between the two.)

    While it's true that I done gradgiated the tenth grade, could you try to dumb it down just a bit.
    This gets frustrating after a while. I don’t think this stuff is that hard, it’s just far enough outside the box to be difficult until the dots are connected. Education doesn’t have that much to do with it imo…I only graduated the 9th grade and am self-educated, though I got a GED some years after quitting school. Thanks for at least taking the time to try to understand the position, that’s more than most are willing to do.

    what need would there be for an immutable pattern of morality for life prior to the existence of life
    Christian theology answers this, but again: the pattern doesn't appear until false opposes true. Truth's force or dynamic arguably produces all goods and drives complex particulars toward their perfection. It makes more sense to me that the truth dynamic preexisted life than that structured information came about from nothing.

  8. #28
    tWebber Anomaly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    midwest US
    Faith
    Christian (Unorthodox)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    132
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    You STILL haven’t made a case against the evidence that morality and ethics are the products of natural selection to enable our survival as cooperative intelligent social animals.
    I'll give it one more shot Tassman: if you would take time to read and consider what is posted you'll see that I offer an alternative metaphysical hypothesis to naturalistic theories of morality. Like the Christian whose mind is closed because he sees his doctrine as truth itself rather than that he possesses only a system of belief that stands in some relationship to truth, you are coming at this discussion as though the theories you embrace consist in a powerful truth that the theist is obligated to answer to.

    When you refused to concede this point earlier I knew there was little hope of forward moving discussion with you on the subject. I have no interest in making a case against your evidences. That is not the gist of this thread.

    finis

  9. #29
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,990
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post

    When you refused to concede this point earlier I knew there was little hope of forward moving discussion with you on the subject. I have no interest in making a case against your evidences. That is not the gist of this thread.
    Evidence of the existence and origin of morality and ethics is the ONLY valid “gist” of this thread. Something, it seems, you are unable to provide - preferring to get bogged down in useless metaphysical arguments, which at bottom are merely academic arguments premised by assumptions.
    Last edited by Tassman; 01-21-2020 at 10:03 PM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  10. #30
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Muslim
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    893
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    37
    @ Anomaly
    Some ideas expressed are interesting...but I have dissatisfaction with some aspects....

    1) Striking with hammer---boulder vs child
    Thought experiments that do not account for diverse circumstances may be inadequate/inaccurate? For example, Mt Rushmore in the U.S. is carved with faces---but this was sacred ground to the Native Americans who thought of it as defacement. Likewise, Mt Fuji in Japan is considered sacred and tourists defacing it with graffiti carvings or trash is upsetting to many. So too, a doctor rebreaking a child's bone to reset it correctly may be a necessary and good action...or when an accident has occurred and the only way to save the life of a child/adult might be to sever a trapped limb....?....
    Rigidity in ethico-moral discourse can lead to injustice....and perhaps even oppression.....

    2) Binaries/dualities---Yin/Yang are often thought of as complimentary binaries rather than opposing binaries. Regardless of "reality" (metaphysic) as unity, duality, or multiplicity...if we understand these "elements"/concepts as necessary and complimentary, rather than as opposing and one element more significant than the other...perhaps our metaphysic may be more flowing/elastic and a better fit for "reality"...?....If we were to assume harmony/balance/peace as the purpose of creation (equilibrium) then it would be easier to accommodate difference?---Divine rules/laws ("values") as of a different grade than human ethics which would be different from animal/plants (laws of ecosystems)...etc....

    3)Justice---If we focus on harmony/balance as a core "force"/direction of creation then it might be helpful to consider Justice not just as a "value" but as a framework within which we/humans form systems of ethico-moral intentions/actions for our societies. Just as creation works within a framework of (physics) "laws " ---humanity could consider "Justice" as a tool for the achievement of balance and harmony (= Peace) within societies..?....
    In the Quranic story of Abel and Cain---the dispute between the 2 brothers led to bloodshed and so "laws/Justice" was advised by God for humanity....the restoration of balance and harmony within human relations leading to peace.
    Therefore...what is permissible (right) and what is not permissible (wrong) are two complimentary concepts that can be part of a system of "measure" with which we consider the weight of ethico-moral "values" under varying circumstances in order to arrive at the most "just" thing to do that can contribute to balance and harmony leading to peace.
    ......U defined "value" as measure of the mixture between truth and falsity---correct?

    4) Evolution/linear progress---If evolution is used as an argument for linear "progress" of ethico-moral thoughts/systems from "primitive" to "cultured"/progressive---then I would have to disagree. Such arguments for "superiority" of one system over another are problematic IMO. Instead if we consider human history as cycles of action, reaction, counteraction...flowing towards equilibrium then both sides of the equilibrium---enlightened/civilized vs ignorant/barbaric are a necessary complimentary ingredient of a vibrant "system"....?

    5) U wrote "Cultural norms as integrated systems of beliefs and practices are morally "right or wrong" according to their statistical relation to "absolute truth".
    Lets say, "absolute truth" = Unity,...the expression of this concept in various cultures and languages will be diverse...therefore the judge of "right/wrong" with regards to their expressed "truth" resides with the community of the believers/followers of that "truth" and not with another....so, even if truth is one---it generates a multiplicity of expressions/practices.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •