Freedomain Radio

Nexa, yea I read it a couple of months back. I am admitedly a little foggy on the details, but I do remember the gist of it.

You wrote: "because stealing cannot be good based on the contradictions such a statement implies"

But there are no contradictions. There is nothing logically invalid about a claim such as Stealing is good. Stefan argued in his book that stealing cannot be good because people would not be able to keep what they stole (since everyone would be stealing.) Yet this is utter nonsense. First of all, it doesnt even matter. "Stealing is good" does not provide a motivation for stealing. It doesnt say: "Stealing is good because it allows one to horde resources." It would make sense to simply say that stealing is good because it is fun to impose your will on others. Yet even if the goal was to horde resources, there is nothing inconsistent about this because it would simply be understood as saying "It is good to try to steal other people's resources while protecting your own." It does not say that if the oppertunity does not present itself to steal, that you are doing anything wrong. Just like the prescription for boiling water does not say anyone is wrong if there is no water available.

Consider one of the arguments I remember Stefan used against rape. Stefan says that if "rape is good" were valid, then given a room with two people, and one overpowers the other, the one getting raped cannot do good, which somehow makes the theory inconsistent. Utter nonsense... The theory is only a prescription, it is saying that one should try to rape. If one cannot acomplish the task, they are not wrong.

Now, another concern that Vichy brought up is: Who says that moral theories have to be universal and consistent across the category of humans? If I took over America and made rules such as: "It is good for Leo to take your things but it is bad for you to take Leo's things." What makes you say that there is something invalid here? The fact that people have similar natures? This fact does not logically imply anything about morality though. No where in the fact that humans are similar is it logically implied that humans should treat each other a certain way. You cannot get past this objection. If I say I should steal from you and you answer that I am wrong because me and you are similar, I will look at you like an idiot. I will ask, what does one thing have to do with the other? I am also similar to a rock, we are both made of matter, and yet you would not say I should treat the rock a certain way would you? If I said "Throwing rocks is good" would you say "No its not because you are both made of matter!" ???

There is nothing inconsistent about "It is good for Leo to take your things but it is bad for you to take Leo's things" because Leo is different from you. Leo is a different category of object than you, and such a theory would simply be claiming that this category of object (Leo) should steal while all other objects under the category of humans should not. To assume, as you do, that all normative claims must be consistent and universal for all members of the category "human" is totally arbitrary. Why can I not say that all normative claims relevant to Leo must only be consistent and universal for the members of the category "Leo." In this case "It is good for Leo to steal" is totally consistent and universal. And why can I not say that all normative claims relevant to all non-Leo humans must be consistent and universal, such as "It is bad for non-Leo humans to steal from Leo." This too is perfectly consistent and universal. What is happening is that you guys just arbitrarily assume that being human is some kind of reason for consistent and universal normative consideration. Well, unless you give me some reasons for this assumptions, than I must remind you that it is in fact, merely an arbitrary assumption.

 

BUT! Even setting all of those objections aside, even if we assumed that all normative claims all had to be universal and consistent accross all humans, your analysis of moral theories is severely flawed. There is nothing inconsistent about taxes and stealing, because, at least people in my society define taxes and stealing as two seperate actions. Taxes is not stealing. Nor is killing on a battlefield murder. You can shift the defenitions to your likeing such that you force them to be inconsistent, but then your analysis is no longer releveant to my society.

UPB does not say "stealing is bad." UPB says: "theories proposing that stealing is universally preferrable behaviour are invalid, because they are self-contradictory."

Vichy:

But the entire point is that all moral statements, contradictory or not, are factually false.  They refer to an impossible relationship or (as I have argued) fail to have any meaning as 'morals' at all.  The entire 'moral argument' route is fallacious and nonsensical, in effect you are appealing to emotional (and other) cognitive biases and using rhetorical tactics to drape it with the 'authority' of an imaginary 'moral' force which does not and could not exist.  Without this imaginary force, which ideologies so strive after, the entire 'morality' argument becomes a null hypothesis.

 

You've returned to authority again.  I know you dislike the attempt to redefine our understanding of what morality means, but the fact is, since there can be no "ought" from an "is" and there is no outside authority, the only way to talk about morality is with regards to it's inconsistency as a universal theory.  And as universality is a requirement for objectivity, any statement that is not universal is just opinion.  And since millions of people are dying due to such opinions on a grand scale (forget about the individual murderer...), it's important to point out those inconsistencies if you're interested in stopping the deaths.

I doubt you'll understand this, and you'll probably go back to calling us crazy for wanting to redefine terms, but that's part of philosophy, is it not?  Attempt to bring our language in line with reality.  You're arguments are all strawmen of UPB, as they argue against the religious/subjective views of our history.

So how were moral theories used to exert authority over you when you were a child?

First of all, I would ask, according to your concept of UPB, is any universally preferrable behavior possible without an assumed goal or objective? Because truly universally preferrable behavior, i.e. behavior that in all circumstances, all conditions, all scenarios is preferrable, literally, universally preferrable behavior is a non-sensical concept. Preferances cannot legitimately exist without objectives or goals. So if UPB deals with truly universal preferances, than it is a pointless pursuit because I can tell you right now that all moral theories incorperating any truly universal preferances are not valid. Not because of contradiction, but because such things cannot exist according to my understanding of preferances.

Thus, you must be speaking about universally preferrable behavior given certain conditions, like a goal or a desire. Am I right? If thats the case, than I fail to see how you could ever conclude that "stealing is universally preferrable behavior assuming certain goals or desires" can be said to be self-contradictory. On the other hand, if the theory was: "Stealing is universally preferrable behavior given the goal of never stealing" than you would have an argument... but... uh... no shit... So again, I fail to see what UPB does, what purpose it serves.

Nexa. But the point is that there cannot be any objective moral theories at all...... Forget inconsistency. This whole idea about moral theories requireing consistency and universality is in error, because you are misrepresenting your own concepts. Based on the way you have argued, I have determined that when you say that a theory must be universal and consistent, you are actually meaning that it has to be universal and consistent in its normative proclamations for the category of all humans. But this is an arbitrary restriction! Cant you see this?

For example, a moral theory can state that only righteous people should act a certain way. A theory can state that if you have good christian values that you should kill others in defense of your country, yet if you do not have good christian values, it is wrong to kill others no matter what.

It is just like a physical theory that deals with certain sub-categories of matter. A theory of chemistry is that if two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen combine, they create water. Yet this does not say that when any three atoms combine they create water. So you would not say that this theory is wrong because it is not universal. IT IS universal. Its just that the fact that atoms are different and have different properties warrents the claim that they behave differently.

So the same could be argued for a moral theory. The fact that people are different, for example the fact that some people have good christian values warrents the claim they should behave differently. Or to return to your examples, the fact that a person works for the IRS is different from a regular citizen warrents the claim that they should behave differently (and the defenition of taxes and stealing express this disctinction.) And the fact that a person is in the army during a war is different than a regular citizen warrents the claim that they should behave differently (and the defenitions of murder and combat killing express this distinction.)

But back to the point. All of these moral theories fail, not because they are inconsistent, but because they are arbitrary. Which is what Vichy is trying to get at, I think. By the nature of morality, all moral theories must inevitably be arbitrary because there is no objective imperative to justify the assumptions that any moral theory must make. And so what the hell is the point of UPB? You dont need UPB to tell the genocidal tyrant that his moral theories are not justified. But dont get it twisted. Telling the genocidal tyrant that his moral theories are unjustified does not mean that a moral theory which says that his actions are wrong is any more justified.

Just throw moral proclamations out already.... you dont need them...

I doubt you'll understand this, and you'll probably go back to calling us crazy for wanting to redefine terms, but that's part of philosophy, is it not?

Leo characterized my objections fairly well.  If you redefine the term morality to get rid of the external imperative then you have annihilated any meaning to 'morality', what the Heck are you actually discussing and why?  If there are no external imperatives, then UPB is nothing but a method for coming to certain conclusions about meaningless statements.  The 'argument from morality' which is so popular among many UPB becomes no argument at all but instead a mistake or semantic trick.

Vichy:

The 'argument from morality' which is so popular among many UPB becomes no argument at all but instead a mistake or semantic trick.

of course it is a trick but it is one with good ends! namely, nice people who commit no propety violations :) It is a trick in the same way a painting of a beautiful scene is a trick, only in the sense that it seems to attempt to make claims outside of itself when it cannot. words cannot invent the universal yet it only takes three people to make a tiger! haha! its true tat if you 'get into' a film you may enjoy it more but i wouldnt say this was a 'good' way to live in general. like you can 'get into' language and actually believe that 'there exists truth' means that somewhere, there is this thing which we can point to (with our fingers or minds) and call 'truth'. it is the grammer of the word truth in part that makes people think that its actually a thing and not just a word.

words are not things :)

 

Leo:

All of these moral theories fail, not because they are inconsistent, but because they are arbitrary. Which is what Vichy is trying to get at, I think. By the nature of morality, all moral theories must inevitably be arbitrary because there is no objective imperative to justify the assumptions that any moral theory must make. And so what the hell is the point of UPB? You dont need UPB to tell the genocidal tyrant that his moral theories are not justified.

 

this is so true its funny. its like you people have never heard of ockam's razor. and thats just the start of it, the above's just why moral theorising according to 'strict' rules fails (objective rule following in general is a theory doomed to failure), it doesnt account for how meaning in general actually works which is a whole other amazing story.

It seems poeple are mixing meaningless with what is not material. We can verify the result of the action of an individual following an ethical choice..Those action create an interactiion with our emotion, instinct and rationality wich is part of an organic body in the physical world, wich make it realy meaningfull by it uninscapable chemical composition.

If ethic was meaningless to individual, we would of see poeple waking up a morning, physicaly healthy,  very happy about his life. Then making a difficult choice between eating ice cream or just die today by puting a bullet on his head, because one choice doesn't really have different meaningfull outcome.

I'll start to believe what Nihilist truely believe in their objections after they choose to die just for the heck of it, without real objection between ice cream, hapiness and death.

Now they are just poeple talking without any integrity of their own believes wasting bandwith in a forum.

neutrinoide:

I'll start to believe what Nihilist truely believe in their objections after they choose to die just for the heck of it, without real objection between ice cream, hapiness and death.

Now they are just poeple talking without any integrity of their own believes wasting bandwith in a forum.

i dont know what to say...other than i think you have misunderstood a great many things to come out with something like this post.

also, i personally believe it takes great intellectual honesty and integrity to claim that morality is just on of many interconnected ways of talking....i think what you have done is created a nihilist straw man and directed some kind of pent up anger/frustration toward it.

instead of just bashing people with ad hominem attacks why not try understanding why they have to believe what they do. then, not only will you have the means to defeat them in public argument but you will also have the empathy required to treat them with true kindness and respect.

peas n glove.

 I can only see integrity by action and not words. So  claiming are empty words and meaningless.

Since ethics is meaningless because it can't come from an objective truth. Why the hell are you talking about empathy and kindness. Since I can choose to not have empathy and kindness it is meaningless.

Here my arguments. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

Phew , It felts so good after this wonderfull anxiety management. This must be the truth hapiness. Now if only i can plug my head into a virtual world and repeat that gain and again. Or maybe I should start a cult where I can sell a new philosophy about rape then convince women enjoying the trauma because it add spice in life.

 

neutrinoide:

 I can only see integrity by action and not words. So  claiming are empty words and meaningless.

ill just assume engish is your second language. i maybe should have said 'intellectual integrity'.

neutrinoide:

Since ethics is meaningless because it can't come from an objective truth. Why the hell are you talking about empathy and kindness. Since I can choose to not have empathy and kindness it is meaningless.

erm, i didnt say any of this. ethics is most certainly not meaningless.

i think part of the reason you misunderstand my position is that you are putting what you think into my head. it is for you that ethics would be meaningless if it didnt come from 'objective truth' (wherever that is...) not me. all that indicates is that for me, ethics does not have to come from objective truth to be meaningful...anyway i digress.

neutrinoide:

Here my arguments. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

Phew , It felts so good after this wonderfull anxiety management. This must be the truth hapiness. Now if only i can plug my head into a virtual world and repeat that gain and again. Or maybe I should start a cult where I can sell a new philosophy about rape then convince women enjoying the trauma because it add spice in life.

you have totally lost me by this point....i dont know what you think i think but its clearly not what you think it is.