Moral vs. Factual Belief

[JimL]

I have a hypothesis that value (admixture of truth and falsity which creates moral mutability) is a non-empiric dynamic within

So, in what sense would you suggest that morals, in and of themselves, exist outside of minds?

[Tassman]

Actually, I think this is what you

[Anomaly]

So, in what sense would you suggest that morals, in and of themselves, exist outside of minds?

[Anomaly]

Actually, I think this is what you are doing.

Well, you are obviously quoting the opinions of others whose format has been well developed over time and is abundantly available to anyone with a computer and internet connection. So where have you seen the "mechanism of value" I contend for in the Christian metaphysical literature? I thought atheists were supposed to be the "free thinkers"...?

The notion that species develop via the natural selection of variations to enhance survival (i.e. 'evolution') is beyond doubt. Equally there is no doubt that morality and ethics are a product of this process to enable our survival as cooperative intelligent social animals.

As to my charge of dogmatic parroting, see my emphasis above. I rest my case, Tassman.

[JimL]

Though P and Q are in various respects mutable, they are supervised by an “outside” immutable force. I call this Form (F). In the natural world F equates to the non-contact forces. The compatibilist structure is that mutable things have freedom to change only within the parameters imposed by F. You may argue that the non-contact forces can’t be proven immutable, but 1) this is not proven, only a cautionary offered by prudent scientists, 2) even if one or more of the four could be proven to change, the point is moot; the pattern remains. The mutable part of existence is supervised by limits imposed, for all intents and purposes, by unchangeable forces. Example: recorded values of gravity has been known to change slightly over time, but these changes could be caused by natural anomalies somewhere else in the universe that doesn’t affect permanence. Indeed, if any of the non-contact forces quit or started changing value one can only imagine what would happen to the structure of the universe….though I suppose a mathematician could come close to predicting outcomes.

The descriptive pattern mirrors prescriptive reality.

So purely in terms of value, since in this hypothesis all existents are valuebearers, truth requires immutable conventions, rules, laws or parameters that mutations (falsification) can operate within. The answer to your question is that “morals” such as they are, exist in and of themselves by virtue of some Form of absolute external truth. And this brings us back to the questions asked in a previous post: is there a natural explanation for absolute truth [ t ] acting as F necessary to maintain the compatibilist structure or does absolute t require a mind? I admit my bias. I believe value requires at least one mind to exist and that mind must be extra-natural; God. But maybe a natural explanation is possible.

The reason I stated “morals such as they are’ is because on this view morals aren’t nouns, they’re verbs or effects created by tension and resistance between t and f. There are only degrees of truth created by the imposition of falsity. Morality is an effect created by degrees of truth. Truth itself is arguably the only real absolute in existence. I can think of no possible world in which it would ever be better or beneficial or good and proper or desirable to abandon seeking truth to pursue the false. Your question is tough to answer because morality, even though it depends on a sum of internal and external forces, doesn't "exist" outside of minds. In the realm of immutable truth, the notion of morality is incoherent because morality is just an expression of tension between truth and falsity...and falsity doesn't exist "outside", in the absolute truth realm.

Every prescriptive or normative outcome is based on agreement of what is true and rejection of what is false. Morality represents the measure of the truth of any prescriptive proposition or set of propositions exists in a given belief. Moral beliefs, though typically expressed as single ideas [abortion is wrong, I should pull the switch (trolley experiment), I am obligated to love my neighbor, etc.] are actually formed from a pool of theoretically true subordinate presuppositions and propositions.

A moral belief is a macro level (intellectual) product of interactions between billions of value constituents in the same way consciousness is sometimes said to be an emergent product of billions of atoms that have taken on a configuration necessary to host an intellect. At the level of a single “iota” of information [roughly comparable to single parts of an atom] value is simply either t or f. In accretion, the sum of attractions of a given set of t – t connections—where the first denomination is an actual value state in the information of agent intellect and the second either an actual or represented value state in information being processed by said agent—and the resistances of t –f or f – t connections applicable to a given moral proposition create a moral belief. So again with respect to your question: morals or moral beliefs are products of internal processing under the influence of one or more external absolutes.

An analogy: trees stand in bright sunlight. Sunlight is absolute truth, trees are individual intellects. (1) Some beliefs unite or connect completely with the sun and are on top of the treeÂ’s leaves getting their tan-on. (2) Some connect partially and are partly in sunlight and partly in shade. (3) Others are at complete tension and resistance with the sun and are completely in the shade on underside of the leaves. Every tree has some mixture of each of these, theist and atheist alike, which is why I take the position that atheists can be as moral or more moral than theists on any particular of the wide variety of moral beliefs available to all.

t – t connections are 1
t – f or f – t are 2
f – f are 3.

Most are 2 in all persons. The admixture of tensions and resistances imposed by t and f creates “gray” areas: faltering belief, unknowing, ambiguity, defects in the moral cognitive processes, etc.

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.

[Tassman]

As to my charge of dogmatic parroting, see my emphasis above. I rest my case, Tassman.

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

Why would you want to introduce the concept of divinely revealed morality into the argument?

[Anomaly]

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 mutable under supervision of the immutablenot natural in a materialistic senseis a natural component of being.value as the base causal dynamic of both immediate/quantitative and moral/qualitative spheres will seem initially incoherent.

[Anomaly]

madehttps://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.

[Tassman]

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, ifis 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.

[Tassman]

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.

[JimL]

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."

[Anomaly]

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?

only in some relation

While it's true that I done gradgiated the tenth grade, could you try to dumb it down just a bit.

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.

[Anomaly]

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

[Tassman]

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 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.

[siam]

@ 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.