Freedomain Radio

bockman:

So if I am correct, it would mean that when someone says "it is an objective fact you should not do that", I can simply say they are wrong.

Would your assertion, "You are wrong" be objectively true, or merely your opinion?

Oh that would be objectively true. Just like it's objectively true that someone saying "reality does not exist" is wrong.

noAdjectives:

And do you think you have proven the existence of any objective morals?

Does the scientific method prove objective facts (not trying to lead, I just know a number of people whose definition of "prove," "objective," "to know" etc. preclude any current method from being capable of proving objective facts)?

Jad:

noAdjectives:

And do you think you have proven the existence of any objective morals?

Does the scientific method prove objective facts (not trying to lead, I just know a number of people whose definition of "prove," "objective," "to know" etc. preclude any current method from being capable of proving objective facts)?

Well, not that I have sat down and really studied how we can prove things, but for the sake of this argument I assume that the scientific method can prove or disprove a hypothesis, such as "gravity exists". If "gravity exists" is proven by the SciMeth, then we can call it an objective fact, and anyone saying "gravity does not exist" is therefor objectively wrong.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.
I hope it's as rewarding for you as it is for me!

u rock

noAdjectives:

Thanks for an interesting discussion.
I hope it's as rewarding for you as it is for me!

For sure.

noAdjectives:

Well, not that I have sat down and really studied how we can prove things, but for the sake of this argument I assume that the scientific method can prove or disprove a hypothesis, such as "gravity exists". If "gravity exists" is proven by the SciMeth, then we can call it an objective fact, and anyone saying "gravity does not exist" is therefor objectively wrong.

OK, I think this might be the important part (maybe not).  SciMeth (I like the abbreviation!) does not prove that gravity exists.  What it does is allow the testing of hypothesis.  If I hypothesize that gravity does not exist (and design and conduct controlled experiments, etc.), SciMeth will indicate that my hypthesis is incorrect and any theory I propose based on the non-existence of gravity is false. 

UPB (which I am familiar with only at the level of having read the book a couple of times), does not make positive claims about morality, just as the scientific method does not make positive claims about reality.  It is a process of invalidating false moral claims.

To go a step further (and this might be too far):

As humans capable of functioning in the "real" world, we also *largely* accept that what SciMeth has faced and let pass (ex. theories that include a correct model of gravity) are "True."  This indicates that they are closer to objective reality than any competing model that SciMeth has been used to process.  Models that lack unicorns, tin pots on the far side of jupiter and god are closer to objective reality than models that posit their existence.

Of course, SciMeth cannot say that unicorns don't exist absolutely, just as it cannot say, absolutely, that I'm not a brain-in-a-tank or a computer simulation.  But if we accept (as you say you have), that an objective reality exists and that it is impressing itself upon your senses in a systematic way, then we can say that we "know" that unicorns don't exist. 

In the last parallel, UPB cannot say anything if human beings are other than we experience them to be.  That is, if there is no objective reality, then it might be that people engage in debate for any number of reasons.  Accepting that human beings are a part of objective reality, we can must accept that they engage in debate because they prefer truth to falsehood.  Either they want to rid themselves of error by rigorous analysis of their claims, or (less healthy), they need to bolster claims they refuse to accept as false by bullying or working themselves into a state of anger or whatever.  The interest is the same in either case, to come away feeling more certain that they are making true claims.  If anyone argues against that claim, they must be doing so because of this same preference (it might be via either of the two methods, but the interest is the same).  Unless logic is an illusion, or we are brains in tanks, then there is a universal human preference to experience one's beliefs as True.

I felt good about this post up until the last paragraph.  I may have misrepresented UPB in some way, so if anyone can help me out, I would appreciate it.  But does that make sense?

Well, SciMeth - and UPB - would say that if a proposition ("we are brains in a tank") has no null hypothesis, no way of being proven or disproven, then it is not a proposition at all, but a meaningless and irrelevant tautology ("in another universe, god might exist!") ("undetectable leprechauns might be all around us!").

Stefan Molyneux:

Well, SciMeth - and UPB - would say that if a proposition ("we are brains in a tank") has no null hypothesis, no way of being proven or disproven, then it is not a proposition at all, but a meaningless and irrelevant tautology ("in another universe, god might exist!") ("undetectable leprechauns might be all around us!").

Yes.  I agree entirely, no null hypothesis = meaningless statement.  I overcomplicated the matter unnecessarily.  I feel like I derailed the conversation a bit.  I was trying to flesh out the following exchange:

Stefan Molyneux:

UPB=SciMeth ; moral propositions = sci theories...

noAdjectives:

And do you think you have proven the existence of any objective morals?

I myself have seen no such proof, which has led me to the conclusion that you cannot say whether or not an action is "objectively moral or immoral" and whether or not an action in and of itself is either objectively good or evil.

So if I am correct, it would mean that when someone says "it is an objective fact you should not do that", I can simply say they are wrong.

And the question remains, if it would turn out that, for example, 'using violence to prevent religious schools to do the evils I find them doing' is an "objectively wrong action", why should I care?

By saying that UPB doesn't prove the existence of objective morals in the same way SciMeth doesn't prove traits of objective reality.  They are both frameworks that allow us to eliminate claims of invalid  ethical/physical theories.  What's left, what UPB and SciMeth cannot invalidate (but that which is not meaningless, as noted above) is what we functionally call "true" and what is objectively the most accurate conceptual analog of reality that we have access to. 

Does this constitute a valid set of definitions with which to proceed?

Objective morality does not exist, any more than the scientific method does, or numbers.

The scientific method does prove traits of objective reality.

It is a lot more simple than people think.

"All men should murder" is an illogical, impossible and self-contradictory proposition, for the reasons discussed in the book. That's all that UPB aims to establish; an objective method for evaluating ethical propositions.

Stefan Molyneux:

"All men should murder" is an illogical, impossible and self-contradictory proposition, for the reasons discussed in the book. That's all that UPB aims to establish; an objective method for evaluating ethical propositions.

Right.  At this level, I totally get it (I thought I got it at more levels, but am beginning to doubt myself).

Stefan Molyneux:

Objective morality does not exist, any more than the scientific method does, or numbers.

The theory of evolution doesn't exist in this manner either.  The scientific method can be used to test it's validity (it's adherence--or the adherence of its constituent propositions--to objective reality).  So maybe noAdjective's question could be rephrased: ". . . you think you've proven the validity of a moral theory (moral code?)?"

Stefan Molyneux:

The scientific method does prove traits of objective reality.

After one of my last posts, I read up on SciMeth on wikipedia.  A number of positions that I held were catagorized as meta-SciMeth.  Falsificationism, verificationism and a whole host of other philosophies of "proper" application of SciMeth.

I was of the understanding that SciMeth could only disprove a theory or affirm it (but not "prove" it).  I thought that the concept of "proving" something was more of a layperson label used for things that had been repeatedly affirmed and never disproven (theory of relativity, for example).  This understanding is apparently not universal and is probably not important.

Stefan Molyneux:

It is a lot more simple than people think.

Which probably means there's a simple reason I'm having difficulty with it.  My experience of it was that I had a decent grasp of SciMeth and UPB.  Maybe I'm getting hung up on inconsequential definitions.

Jad:

The theory of evolution doesn't exist in this manner either.  The scientific method can be used to test it's validity (it's adherence--or the adherence of its constituent propositions--to objective reality).  So maybe noAdjective's question could be rephrased: ". . . you think you've proven the validity of a moral theory (moral code?)?"

Exactly. Nicely put.

Does the claim "murder is bad/wrong/evil" 'adhere' to objective reality, like the claim "gravity exists" does?

Well I think so, which is why I use empirical examples in the book...

Stefan Molyneux:

Well I think so, which is why I use empirical examples in the book...

Right. This is where I have problems.

I first of all think Danny did a pretty good job in saying where the problems lie in trying to come up with a 100% logical non-arbitrary moral statement (like "murder is bad"). And I haven't seen anyone refute him yet. Link here for those who haven't read it.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the thought that a universal statement about morals can ever be true. Whether it is "murder is always good", "murder is always bad", or "murder is sometimes good, sometimes bad" really doesn't make any difference. The whole idea seems to be that there can be some claim about morals which 'adheres' to reality like "gravity exists" does. And I just don't see this.

As far as I understand it now, you're not saying that my personal morals (such as "I find murder to be good sometimes") is right or wrong, what you're saying is that if I try and make the claim "murder is universally good sometimes" I am wrong.

I actually don't really know where the problem lies - if it's the fact that "murder is bad" needn't be the only possible logical and consistent statement like Danny showed, or if it is the claim that there might be truth in a universal moral claim (a claim I would call "objective morality"). By the last thing I basically mean that even if there is a moral claim that is 100% logical, non-arbitrary, and internally consistent, I doubt it would actually make a difference to whether or not it would be "true" (adhere to reality).

So that's basically my position.
Hope you understand it.

Nope!

 upb has the proofs for why murder is universally wrong,but alsoa hple other set of proofs for  why is murder ok as a response to attempted murder/violence/violation of property rights

why is murder wrong:

1) people who cant murder can never be moral

2) people that do murder are only moral for that micro-secend when the guy dies

3) two people in a room cant be moral at the same time if it is morally right to murder

why is murder not nutral: it is inflicted upon others and therefore must have moral segnificance ( inforceable throgh violence or could be morally stoped using violence)

why is murder ok as a response to attempted murder/violence/violation of property rights:

for that proof there are some sentences not yey proven which i discuss on my post titled "property" which are

1) property exists (proven in upb)

2)infringing on property rights is immoral (proven in upb)

3) a man own his body ( still causes problems)

4) actions must be taken to make sure morality is implemented in reality

5) if actions= violence so be it

noAdjectives:

 

I actually don't really know where the problem lies - if it's the fact that "murder is bad" needn't be the only possible logical and consistent statement like Danny showed, or if it is the claim that there might be truth in a universal moral claim (a claim I would call "objective morality"). By the last thing I basically mean that even if there is a moral claim that is 100% logical, non-arbitrary, and internally consistent, I doubt it would actually make a difference to whether or not it would be "true" (adhere to reality).

So that's basically my position.
Hope you understand it.

Well, the way I thought about it, that got me covinced of UPB is as follows.  Any moral doctrine that is not UPB compliant is oppressive.

Whenever you tell someone that they are subject to a moral rule, you must apply it to everyone.  Otherwise, your morality is oppressive to them.  This is because they are subjected to rules that other people are not.  There can be no good reason why someone should accept an oppressive rule, and if they are a person of self esteem they won't do so.

You also can't tell them that they are exempt from a moral rule that applies to others, because this is inviting them to oppress other people.

Also, any moral theory that is true had better be consistant, because reality is consistant.  A non-consistant moral theory is also inapplicable to reality, and there is no point to an inapplicable theory.