Moral vs. Factual Belief

[Anomaly]

@ Anomaly
Some ideas expressed are interesting...but I have dissatisfaction with some aspects....

Hello Siam, thanks for responding.

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.....

I think you overburden the purpose of thought experiments, they are only analogies used to present a certain point. And the mechanism of value does take into account the defacements you mention. Unlike factual properties which are drawn from individual facts, moral properties are drawn from human activities within states of affairswithin

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.

[siam]

Apologies in advance---but if I could reword some concepts to check for comprehension....?....

1) micro event vs symbolism to a macro circumstance.
One presumption can be that a rock--inert, inorganic---is of less value (no value) than a bone which is assumed animate, organic.
Another presumption can be that there is no value distinction between inorganic and organic as both contain the "Divine". (Kami, spirit, prana, divine breath....etc)
therefore any distinction or lack of distinction may be a result of cultural/metaphysic bias?
what may not be sacred to you may be sacred to someone else......

2)Unity within diversity vs Unity with uniformity (homogeneous unity)
If we consider "change" as a catalyst for vitality and stagnation the result of inertia then it is essential to consider equilibrium (balance/harmony) in the context of change---or Unity within diversity. The other option---Unity with uniformity is the path to extinction.
at the genetic level---it is gene diversity and mutations that keep many species going---uniformity often leads to extinction of the species....
complementary binaries provide the "pendulum" towards equilibrium but equilibrium without reaction/change leads to stagnation and stagnation creates the means to extinction. In order to have "vital systems" reactions need to be ongoing---which means diversity is essential as it is the creative material that produces change....and change causes reactions and reactions causes the pendulum to keep going....which means the "system" retains its vitality

3) Intrinsic truth vs expressed truth
You mentioned instrumental truths as those that human beings decide for themselves---correct? I will change the wording to "expressed truth" for my convenience....Let us assume that God (or whatever) made creation "in truth"---that is, truth is in the very being/nature of all creation both inorganic and organic. We can call this "intrinsic truth". So a rock gets eroded with the flow of water and both water and rock are in accord with their "intrinsic truth" or nature.---correct? Then there are animate organisms that live instinctively in accord with their nature/"intrinsic truth" and those that have the ability to decide otherwise (limited free-will). When one decides otherwise to intrinsic truth---justification that overcomes resistance---is required. It seems this is the difference between intrinsic truth and expressed truth---for example, Mt Fuji, which is considered sacred, has hiking paths, shops/rest stops and such---in order for this not to be vandalism---it has to be justified with some excuse/reason.
Justification can act as a convenient "cover" to hide "intrinsic truth"...and this is what you call Falsity?---correct?

4) Equilibrium---truth/falsity as complimentary ingredients of a vibrant system.
If "expressed truth" contains both truth and illusion(perception)...then one persons judgement of this "expressed truth" may be the opposite of another person. One perception of falsity is another's truth. The Afghan fighters were labelled "freedom fighters" at one point and "terrorists" the next. Their labels changed but their mission/justification to "free" the land of "foreign" occupation remained the same.....The U.S. declaration of independence also states that it is a right and a duty of the people to overthrow an abusive government....so are they terrorists or freedom fighters?
Ibn Khaldun had a theory of history---in this he proposed that a civilization (a society based on civility ---such as ethics, laws, justice....) rose from hardship and formed a union and an identity which helped its progress...this progress brought happiness and stability...but prolonged stability leads to stagnation (corruption) of the civilization contributing to its crumbling and demise at the hands of those less "civilized" who then rise and build from hardship....and the cycle continues.....therefore---this rise and fall of civilization is an "intrinsic truth" of history/law of nature----the cycles of action, reaction, counteraction that create flows of equilibrium and change in a "system".

5) Diversity is not only a matter of different expression of "truth" but also different weights on "values" (liberty, equality, property....etc) the combination of these different weights creates different ethico-moral conclusions...?....

[Anomaly]

2)Unity within diversity vs Unity with uniformity (homogeneous unity)
If we consider "change" as a catalyst for vitality and stagnation the result of inertia then it is essential to consider equilibrium (balance/harmony) in the context of change---or Unity within diversity. The other option---Unity with uniformity is the path to extinction.
at the genetic level---it is gene diversity and mutations that keep many species going---uniformity often leads to extinction of the species....
complementary binaries provide the "pendulum" towards equilibrium but equilibrium without reaction/change leads to stagnation and stagnation creates the means to extinction. In order to have "vital systems" reactions need to be ongoing---which means diversity is essential as it is the creative material that produces change....and change causes reactions and reactions causes the pendulum to keep going....which means the "system" retains its vitality

3) Intrinsic truth vs expressed truth
You mentioned instrumental truths as those that human beings decide for themselves---correct? I will change the wording to "expressed truth" for my convenience....Let us assume that God (or whatever) made creation "in truth"---that is, truth is in the very being/nature of all creation both inorganic and organic. We can call this "intrinsic truth". So a rock gets eroded with the flow of water and both water and rock are in accord with their "intrinsic truth" or nature.---correct? Then there are animate organisms that live instinctively in accord with their nature/"intrinsic truth" and those that have the ability to decide otherwise (limited free-will). When one decides otherwise to intrinsic truth---justification that overcomes resistance---is required. It seems this is the difference between intrinsic truth and expressed truth---for example, Mt Fuji, which is considered sacred, has hiking paths, shops/rest stops and such---in order for this not to be vandalism---it has to be justified with some excuse/reason.
Justification can act as a convenient "cover" to hide "intrinsic truth"...and this is what you call Falsity?---correct?

4) Equilibrium---truth/falsity as complimentary ingredients of a vibrant system.
If "expressed truth" contains both truth and illusion(perception)...then one persons judgement of this "expressed truth" may be the opposite of another person. One perception of falsity is another's truth. The Afghan fighters were labelled "freedom fighters" at one point and "terrorists" the next. Their labels changed but their mission/justification to "free" the land of "foreign" occupation remained the same.....The U.S. declaration of independence also states that it is a right and a duty of the people to overthrow an abusive government....so are they terrorists or freedom fighters?
Ibn Khaldun had a theory of history---in this he proposed that a civilization (a society based on civility ---such as ethics, laws, justice....) rose from hardship and formed a union and an identity which helped its progress...this progress brought happiness and stability...but prolonged stability leads to stagnation (corruption) of the civilization contributing to its crumbling and demise at the hands of those less "civilized" who then rise and build from hardship....and the cycle continues.....therefore---this rise and fall of civilization is an "intrinsic truth" of history/law of nature----the cycles of action, reaction, counteraction that create flows of equilibrium and change in a "system".


5) Diversity is not only a matter of different expression of "truth" but also different weights on "values" (liberty, equality, property....etc) the combination of these different weights creates different ethico-moral conclusions...?....

[Rushing Jaws]

They don't. Morality and ethics developed for the same reason, i.e. they are a product of evolution as it lends itself to our survival as a species. In short, they are an instinctive survival mechanism.

I always thought the two were the same thing. So what is the difference ?

[Tassman]

I always thought the two were the same thing. So what is the difference ?

https://www.britannica.com/story/wha...ity-and-ethics

[shunyadragon]

Why do moral and ethical thoughts, beliefs, propositions, motivations, etc. seem different than purely descriptive or factual ones? Consider the following statements:
1. It is okay to rape someone as long as this is done as part of a study to determine first hand the psychological effects the act has on victims.

Not true

2. There is nothing wrong with believing 40 + 16 sometimes equals 55.

Failed third grade math.

Very poor way to introduce a thread.

[Jim B.]

Not true



Failed third grade math.

Very poor way to introduce a thread.

He's saying consider the following statements, as hypotheticals, not as factual assertions.

[shunyadragon]

He's saying consider the following statements, as hypotheticals, not as factual assertions.

I considered that and it still does not compute.

[Jim B.]

I considered that and it still does not compute.

You have to read those hypothetical statements in the context of the point he's making. They clearly weren't meant as his literal beliefs.

[Anomaly]

Value-Based Morality and Ethics as a Challenge to Evolutionary Morality Theories

Part One: Basicshttps://www.youtube.com/results?sear...tance+ontologypattern of activityValue
The idea of two kinds of value, descriptive (factual, material) and prescriptivetension, while a much more dynamic resistance arises in the sufficiently truthbearing mind from contact with the a moral proposition. #3 would be opposite of #2; falsity within the intellect here encounters tension and/or resistance to true propositions. These four relations at the micro level of the iota accumulate to create in the individual in macro existence predispositions toward or away from truth in the formation of beliefs, motivations, etc. An agent may be predisposed to favor either prescriptive or descriptive propositional positions, but the dynamic is always prescriptive; factual value is normatively inert and lacks this capacity.

Part Two will address the problems of soul-body location, the seemingly deterministic path this presentation of value seems to impose and a possible model for the forming of moral belief via value interactions between mental states and brain states.

[Anomaly]

Part Two


Dualism.jpgFIG_THREE2.jpg

In their paper Emotion, Cognition, and Mental State Representation in Amygdala and Prefrontal Cortex Salzman and Fuzi (2010) make the following distinction between mental states and brain states:

location2.jpg The result was that Gage, who was reported to be polite and clear thinking before his accident, changed. After the accident he was said by reports from that time period to have become, Both his moral and rational statures were changed by his accident.

But the value mechanism model requires that proper function follows from the sum processes of the prescriptive soul-descriptive body union. Gage and others who have suffered similar damage suffer no merely changes in material configuration, but changes in value states from good to worse. People change from better to worse in both their physical and moral stances as a regular part of life, some by damage to the brain but most without suffering any such injury. The value mechanism accounts for defect to moral, emotive and cognitive functions imposed from eitherFIG_4_2.jpgFIG_2_2.jpgabiogenesis, the natural process by which life arose from inert matter, biopoiesis as production of organic matter from complex self-replicating organic molecules. And autopoiesisDeterministic Value Statesany contemplation

[mattbballman31]

They seem different because they are different.

Yep.

[shunyadragon]

Okay, I see a lot of room was left open in the OP. I maintain that:

1. truth or any concept of value requires a mind of at least intellectual or higher caliber

The highest known mind or at least intellectual caliber is human nature which reflects the natural diversity of the evolved cultures over the history of humanity. Morals and ethics are necessary for the survival of the natural evolution of humanity

2. truth either
a. preexists or
b is a product of human minds or
c has some other natural explanation for its existence.

The objective evidence indicates b and c.

Thesis believe in a.