Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

eye2i2hear · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2012 08:05 AM by eye2i2hear.)

Does this aid any? (which is not necessarily to imply I agree on every specific point made; and/or how every point is expressed/argued)

FDR forum poster Dustin via a discussion of Universally Preferable Behavior Wrote:What makes a comet impacting with a distant barren planet and our own different, is because we, conscious individuals are here. Going deeper, that difference is created by values we have created.

We each create value ourselves; an entirely subjective matter. From those values, we create morals. Without these values, morality is irrelevant. If I do not value my life or anyone elses, I cannot possibly have a moral code concerning murder. I am to the value of life, as a comet smashing into Earth. I do not care, much less have the ability to care. If I do not value my property, and do not value anothers, stealing is not a moral problem for me. If I have no values whatsoever, I have no moral preference at all. In short, I drift through life at the mercy of every external factor and in all probability, expire shortly. To say that morality is objective then, is not logical. If morality is objective, it applies to all things outside the mind. This is impossible. Trees and rocks do not have consciousness, therefore cannot think, therefore cannot create conceptual values to choose from, therefore are exempt from morality.

From this I conclude that as values (and therefore morals), are unique to the conscious state in the form of concepts, morality is ultimately subjective. This is not to say that it is inconsistent! As most of us share the same values, (e.g. life, property, happiness etc.) we arrive [mostly] at the same moral conclusions. From these morals we adjust our behavior to pursue our own rational [logical, reasoned], long term self interest.

I value my property. I extend that value to others property and hope they share that value, as we will both enjoy life more if we do so, something else I value. These values and morals are still subjective, no matter how many individuals collectively share them! They do not exist outside our own conscious. I can value a bird's nest, and take care not to disturb it; I want birds to continue to thrive around me because I subjectively find that diversity of life in my environment enriches my own. The bird does not share my values; it steals scones off my patio table. If it were 20 feet tall it might devour me for food, with not a moral thought to disturb it; it probably lacks reasoning to find value in me to obtain a moral.

"Universally Preferable Behavior" is the title, no? Not "Universally Objective Behavior". It is preferable because we have values to choose from, values we share, and consciousness to develop said values.
<a class="postlink" href="http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/t/29310.aspx?PageIndex=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums ... ageIndex=4</a>

[bracketed words mine; + some spell check corrections --eye2i]
Part of what clicks for me with it is that when I hear the word value, I think of evaluation; thus one's values come via evaluation, hence, they're either more a.) <logical, or z.) >logical.
Not to overlook that evaluation (as a valued process?!) is fluid; each instance carries nuances allowing for difference or distinction of conclusion/value; is 'living' (e.g. Xeer)?

User "Haplo" included in this thread:

Haplo Wrote:If, however, you define morality as "those things which [one] ought to objectively like or dislike (right/wrong; good/evil)", then you've skipped any prerequisite goals [resulting from evaluation] and dropped straight into a new brand of bigotry...

[ps: for those interested in Stefban's "UPB" proposal, the entire thread might be of interest]

eye2i2hear · 06-07-2011, 11:38 AM

Some thoughts explored/shared by another herein.

WorBlux · 06-08-2011, 08:58 PM

eye2i2hear Wrote:[ps: for those interested in Stefban's "UPB" proposal, the entire thread might be of interest]

UPB's something that comes up on that board all the time, and is more or less the same every time.

My contribution, (And I just point back to it whenever the topic comes up.

<a class="postlink" href="http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/23532/183708.aspx#183708" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums ... spx#183708</a>

The thing I'd point out about Dustin's post is that morality is not just about what is valued, but about what is valuable (in the scope of human action) Good is to be done and pursued. It glances on this point, but just doesn't hit it squarely. And example at how one might arrive at a conclusion of the valuable.

<a class="postlink" href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas-moral-political/#SamFirPriKnoPur" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquin ... rPriKnoPur</a>

Quote: As a child one experiences the inclination to ask questions, and to greet apparently satisfactory answers with satisfaction and failure to answer as a disappointment. At some point one comes to understand -- has the insight -- that such answers are instances of a quite general standing possibility, namely knowledge, coming to know and overcoming ignorance. By a distinct though often well nigh simultaneous further insight one comes to understand that this â knowledge -- is not merely a possibility but also a good [bonum], that is to say an opportunity, a benefit, something desirable as a kind of improvement (a perfectio) of one's or anyone's condition, and as to be pursued.

eye2i2hear · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2012 08:07 AM by eye2i2hear.)

WorBlux Wrote:UPB's something that comes up on that board all the time, and is more or less the same every time.
My contribution, (And I just point back to it whenever the topic comes up.
<a class="postlink" href="http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/23532/183708.aspx#183708" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums ... spx#183708</a>

If I may ask, a bit point blank, do you find UPB (the theory/the book) convincing/satisfying?
[FWIW, I no longer do; and not so much that it's total bunk to me, as much as it isn't consistently LRR (logical+reasoned+rational). And as a sidebar, it has nothing to do with the author having banned me from his website-- which in retrospect/re-evaluation, was a [strike]godsend[/strike] [strike]dogsend[/strike] goodsend]

Quote:The thing I'd point out about Dustin's post is that morality is not just about what is valued, but about what is valuable (in the scope of human action) Good is to be done and pursued.

Could you expound a bit more on this? I'm finding it, as written, a bit circular.

One side bar share with it, is that for me here was the first time I connected the words 'good' and 'goods'; where with the latter followed the expression "goods and services". And goods and services are but... evaluation's results aka each one's individual values?

[Image: seesaw.gif]

Let me share too, that on this (grey)matter of morality/ethics, I'm presently befuddled regarding the objective versus subjective aspect of/argument over it. But on a scale, I'm way on the side of it being subjective. In a bit of a ying&yang sense (?), I can see that for human beings, 'good' is objective-- but only in the [strike]sense[/strike] intuitiveness akin to the ethereal "gut hunch" that it's some[strike]thing[/strike] feeling We all [strike]'know'[/strike] experience as an inclination, but that is totally subjective when it comes to the specifics of what is and isn't. There seems to be "The Good" that each intuits, but that can only be "a good" in the reality of given time and space shared --individually and socially. The "Good is to be done and pursued." (period!) specifically still ultimately gets down to each and everyone's opinion, no? Even where UPB's "universally" really is not much more than "majority rule"/democracy?
And opinions are either logically, rationally reasoned (LRR) evaluations, or not so much-- with typically a bunch of grey (matter) even with LRR? [and how much a perpetuation of the specific memes as thought-habit, dogma, to indoctrination, transfers them as be(come)ing objective rather than subjective is still up for settlement].

For my present state/peace of mind, the notorious is/ought matter is simply a consonant shift to: the if/ought matter. Wherein, if one values such and such, then the most logically, rationally reasoned approach ought to be the way. If not, then you ought to do what value aka what you want to. [how anothers value, arrived at via their evaluation, will address it, well, that's what is called 'society' (2 individuals to 6 billion individuals) --and 'history']

Quote: As a child one experiences the inclination to ask questions, and to greet apparently satisfactory answers with satisfaction and failure to answer as a disappointment. At some point one comes to understand -- has the insight -- that such answers are instances of a quite general standing possibility, namely knowledge, coming to know and overcoming ignorance. By a distinct though often well nigh simultaneous further insight one comes to understand that this â knowledge -- is not merely a possibility but also a good [bonum], that is to say an opportunity, a benefit, something desirable as a kind of improvement (a perfectio) of one's or anyone's condition, and as to be pursued.

This connects for me (as LRR) Smile

; particularly the part where it's expressed as "a good [bonum]" (i.e. as amongst goods and services) and as such it is defined as something desirable... as a kind of-- hence something evaluated, then valued as valuable (to their self)... in time and space aka an instance (that may or may not change in the next/another aka the next evalueation...).

eye2i2hear · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2012 08:09 AM by eye2i2hear.)

A quote from some others on this road...

chippy Wrote:Empathy, the ability to feel what others feel, is an inherent human characteristic. We can even observe it in other species. Since our species would have likely not survived if it were nothing but a free for all, something had to be at work long before verbal language and the ability to "reason" philosophy. That's the model I use to help me see the point. All morality that has ever been decided, followed, preached, invented, or even conceived, wouldn't exist, had it not been for the fact that it already existed in some form... inherently. I put forth, empathy as the culprit. I don't see it as a chicken/egg dichotomy.

It just so happens, that we all have, to varying degrees, the ability to empathize. Hell, it even happens when you don't want it too. So, while each human has a slightly different inherent empathy (partly learned through experience), the individual moralities are not objective, but at least they're in the ballpark. That's why murder is generally considered to be "bad" in societies on whole. Nobody would want to lose anyone close to them, so they have a tendency to not kill others.

It's a simplistic model to be sure, but one for which I've been unable to find a decent argument against. It isn't until we actually start trying to "think" morality, that our species fucked it up.

Source: Amoralism? : Philosophy - Page 2 â¢ Rational Skepticism Forum

Part of my initial question is along the lines of how far back (generationaly) said "inherent" goes? Akin to whether it's inherited as a meme, or "inherent" from the likes of the parental nuture of Muther Nature (with her Darwinizer)... how might "we" (today) ever know?

bonus:

Quote:From what I have been able to surmise, the road to knowledge is made almost entirely of potholes. You drive along for awhile and get an occasional jolt from hitting a bit of tarmac.

WorBlux · 06-17-2011, 08:32 PM

Well I'll try to take this one part at a time, as it's something difficult to express clearly.

eye2i2hear Wrote:
WorBlux Wrote:UPB's something that comes up on that board all the time, and is more or less the same every time.
My contribution, (And I just point back to it whenever the topic comes up.
<a class="postlink" href="http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/23532/183708.aspx#183708" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums ... spx#183708</a>
If I may ask, a bit point blank, do you find UPB (the theory/the book) convincing/satisfying?

I don't find a whole lot objectionable about the 13-15 premises of UPB, but I don't think that much of the book itself. I think it focuses on the wrong parts, instead of the essential ones. Also most of the explanation redundant/tedious or to be self-aggrandizement, or to continue from those essential point, but being nearly useless because the essential point was only one or two sentences.

Really his (Stefan Molyneux's) best non-fictional work was "On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion". If you weren't really aware of the ideals of reciprocation in relationships and logic in ethics, but are even the slightest bit open, then it's like being hit by a car. (Yes I've both been hit by a car and read the book.) If you aren't its like touching a hot stove. His God of Ethics is also quite good, but it's non-fiction.

eye2i2hear Wrote:[FWIW, I no longer do; and not so much that it's total bunk to me, as much as it isn't consistantly LRR (logical+reasoned+rational). And as a sidebar, it has nothing to do with the author having banned me from his website-- which in retrospect/re-evaluation, was a [strike]godsend[/strike] [strike]dogsend[/strike] goodsend]

Ah, I'm still around, but don't hang out a whole lot there anymore. I still listen and enjoy the podcasts though. It's nice to have a real conversation where you don't get a lot posts saying the same thing without having seemed to have read any of the posts between your first one and their most recent one.

eye2i2hear Wrote:
Quote:The thing I'd point out about Dustin's post is that morality is not just about what is valued, but about what is valuable (in the scope of human action) Good is to be done and pursued.
Could you expound a bit more on this? I'm finding it, as written, a bit circular.

It's an observation of how people use the term. Saying X is morally good carries a different meaning than saying I want or like X. It carries general rather than specific denotation. That this is the ordinary practice suggests that there really is something general by which these determinations are made. The common usage has no idea what this something is, but nonetheless suggests that it is indeed there.

For a good work on ethics, Roderick Long's "Nature of Law" part 4.
<a class="postlink" href="http://freenation.org/a/f21l3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://freenation.org/a/f21l3.html</a>

eye2i2hear Wrote:One side bar share with it, is that for me here was the first time I connected the words 'good' and 'goods'; where with the latter followed the expression "goods and services". And goods and services are but... evaluation's results aka each one's individual values?

Let me share too, that on this (grey)matter of morality/ethics, I'm presently befuddled regarding the objective versus subjective aspect of/argument over it. But on a scale, I'm way on the side of it being subjective. In a bit of a ying&yang sense (?), I can see that for human beings, 'good' is objective-- but only in the [strike]sense[/strike] intuitiveness akin to the ethereal "gut hunch" that it's some[strike]thing[/strike] feeling We all [strike]'know'[/strike] experience as an inclination, but that is totally subjective when it comes to the specifics of what is and isn't. There seems to be "The Good" that each intuits, but that can only be "a good" in the reality of given time and space shared --individually and socially. The "Good is to be done and pursued." (period!) specifically still ultimately gets down to each and everyone's opinion, no? Even where UPB's "universally" really is not much more than "majority rule"/democracy?

It's not objective as in there's something you can set your finger on and settle the matter, and it's not subjective as in any answer is as good as any other, or dependent completely on opinion.

It's not just talking about a good as a benefit, but also as a perfection. Something that adds to or aids the essential characteristics of men. Things that function to make man function more like he is inclined to function. It's not exactly tail chasing, but definitely approaching navel staring. Something fairly subtle that can only really be approached in fractions and gestures.

And yes men have essential characteristics or a nature that make them men as opposed to trees, goats, or mere apes. They are the things that tend to also be the most explanatory about men as well.

eye2i2hear Wrote:And opinions are either logically, rationally reasoned (LRR) evaluations, or not so much-- with typically a bunch of grey (matter) even with LRR? [and how much a perpetuation of the specific memes as thought-habit, dogma, to indoctrination, transfers them as be(come)ing objective rather than subjective is still up for settlement].

Not necessarily. Even the basics of math, describable in algorithmic terms still depend on a few assumption made from the prima facie seemingness of something other than rigorous proof. Indeed Godel's incompleteness therom states that if math and physics is self-consistent, no proof can be made from those disciplines of themselves. Note that this comment is not meant to question the reliability of physics, but the standard and methods of logical positivism which are unreasonably high and introduce doubt rather than certainty.

There are also other areas where the subject is unclear and there is much disagreement (economics, psychology, sociology) but is is uncommon for someone to call the whole field a study of spooks. There is a lot of uncertainty in medicine. Syndrome is just a synonym for we didn't or don't know why.

The main method to check ethics is the dialectic, which is where you trace implications to see where there is conflict and try to figure out which is more likely. You can sometimes check against experience but that's really only clear when things are either perfectly right or horribly wrong. Part of it's also that essence or nature isn't something you can put your finger on, and is itself ambivalent or open at times.

For example marriage and the rasing of children was one of the basic goods listed by Aquainas, but I believe that the form will change. Technology is going to make the world much more akin to the world of pre-history than of recent history. In pre-history skills and knowledge were all you had to go on in the world. A group of people was much better at imparting this than just two. With an increase of technology today, skills, both social and technical, will become more important than any property that you might start with.

eye2i2hear Wrote:For my present state/peace of mind, the notorious is/ought matter is simply a consonant shift to: the if/ought matter. Wherein, if one values such and such, then the most logically, rationally reasoned approach ought to be the way. If not, then you ought to do what value aka what you want to. [how anothers value, arrived at via their evaluation, will address it, well, that's what is called 'society' (2 individuals to 6 billion individuals) --and 'history']

Quote: As a child one experiences the inclination to ask questions, and to greet apparently satisfactory answers with satisfaction and failure to answer as a disappointment. At some point one comes to understand -- has the insight -- that such answers are instances of a quite general standing possibility, namely knowledge, coming to know and overcoming ignorance. By a distinct though often well nigh simultaneous further insight one comes to understand that this â knowledge -- is not merely a possibility but also a good [bonum], that is to say an opportunity, a benefit, something desirable as a kind of improvement (a perfectio) of one's or anyone's condition, and as to be pursued.
This connects for me (as LRR) ; particularly the part where it's expressed as "a good [bonum]" (i.e. as amongst goods and services) and as such it is defined as something desirable... as a kind of-- hence something evaluated, then valued as valuable (to their self)... in time and space aka an instance (that may or may not change in the next/another aka the next evalueation...).

Yes, I think the forms and approaches may change. Marriage and raising of children as I've already said. Also thinks like how property is set apart may change in form as circumstances change.

However I think that the perfections or essential characteristics the practices are aimed at can't or won't change without creating something other than homo sapiens. For example, if in the future we were to become something where knowledge was not a sort of perfection and desirable on those grounds, then we would have become something else. And iin fact a something else almost entirely alien to what we are now.

As I final note, I would like to commend your commentary and objections as stimulating. I found it much easier than usual to fish the good ideas about this topic out of my muddled mind.

eye2i2hear · (This post was last modified: 05-14-2012 08:10 AM by eye2i2hear.)

"FYC" (the book, but note, also the review)

[Review] *The Moral Psychology Handbook* (2010) - Less Wrong Discussion

lukeprog, in his introduction of his review Wrote:The Moral Psychology Handbook (2010), edited by John Doris, is probably the best way to become familiar with the exciting interdisciplinary field of moral psychology. The chapters are written by philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists. A few of them are all three, and the university department to which they are assigned is largely arbitrary.

The book is exciting because it undermines or outright falsifies a long list of popular philosophical theories with - gasp! - empirical evidence.

eye2i2hear · 05-14-2012, 08:53 AM

"FYC/IAI"...

Beyond Beyond Morality by Richard Garner (table of contents to pdf book/chapters online)

excerpt:

Garner, in his Conclusion Wrote:
... Even after learning what we are going to abandon when we abandon morality, and why it may be a good idea to do so, we were not quite ready to start our new post-moral reflections because several objections to amoralism, the error theory, and even moral abolitionism had not yet been answered. So, in Chapter Six, we considered some of the peculiar and desperate things moral philosophers have said in order to defend morality against its traditional enemies. I then moved on to suggest that the worries of these philosophers are unwarranted because we can do quite well without what Mackie called “the moral overlay.” I concluded Chapter Six with a criticism of moral fictionalism, the idea that while moral judgments are all false, there are practical reasons for continuing to exploit them. However useful morality may have been in the past, if it is truly in error, as the error theorist insists, it will be available to encourage and defend destruction and atrocities unimaginable in previous centuries. This alone might make morality, in Nietzsche’s words, “the danger of dangers.” Plenty of powerful religious and political figures have insisted that their followers have a moral duty to destroy some country, or to abuse or even kill the members of some race, religion, or alternative persuasion. Our future will be much brighter if we can all stop our self-involved and combative moral posturing, develop a more realistic understanding of our conflicts of interest, and come up with ways to resolve them that are based on mutual respect and the best information we can get.
... When we finally arrived at Chapter Seven we were officially “beyond morality.” Questions such as “What ought I do?” and “What is truly good?” were given a rest and we started asking “What shall I do?” and “What do I value?” By looking beyond morality we can tune in on some very wise advice by people who sound quite unlike the moralists we usually hear... helpful suggestions about emotions and desires flow in from Epicureans, Buddhists, Daoists, and from all those who have elaborated on and/or profited from that ancient wisdom.

The result of taking some of this advice seriously can be very positive, but we still needed to know how to apply these helpful suggestions in our own lives. That meant that we needed to take a close look at what happens when we do come to that “fork in the road.” We decide, of course, but how does that work? Our desire and emotions come in but, as I argued in Chapter Eight, decisions emerge, as do beliefs, from an unconscious “processor” that we do not completely control or even fully monitor.
Decisions and beliefs are formed, as Malcolm Gladwell remarked, behind the locked door of our minds; and this is a good thing, because otherwise we might just paralyze ourselves trying to figure everything out, or we might get eaten (or beaten) because we were thinking when we should have been jumping.

http://beyondmorality.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Conclusion.pdf

--eye2i2thiNkEr [Image: gorilla_thinker.jpg]

NonEntity · 05-14-2012, 09:07 AM

(05-14-2012 08:53 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote: "FYC/IAI"...

Intrinsic Albino Infertility?

- NonE (Never ornery nor Enmityish)

eye2i2hear · 05-14-2012, 10:02 AM

So why didn't you ask about "FYC", FW? Tounge

(eye nose, eye nose, i ears u; ewe already no's@ 1)

IAI = It's All Information.
(tho I forgit who the FW wuz that eye got such from...)

--NonEye2i

ps: don't cha miss the old forum feature of being able to do a mouseover info popup...?! *sigh*