Freedomain Radio

 Greg, if we get to know each other and become friends that sort of private information might be shared. But on this thread right now we're trying to do some philosophy.

Stephan, I don't know how your call-in forums work but yesterday I saw no opportunity to join in. But this is only one of many attempts I have made to ask questions from FDR folks to which no answers are attempted. This thread, for example, has been going a wee while now with no answers.

Nex,-

For me, sex is not a "crucial issue." 

That's great. How did you determine that? Surely you're not living 'from hand to mouth' want waiting for things to go wrong before attempting to understand and defend your values for the first time?

I feel extremely anxious after I read your posts, and I'll be honest... I don't think that's my emotion.  What's really going on for you with this?  What are your feelings when you think about sex?  How has sex become a "foundational" issue?

Sex is, objectively, a foundational issue. You should feel as anxious as an Emperor With No Clothes to be so philosophically naked yet to go out into the world this way in Imperial applications as if fully dressed. If you don't feel anxious then what little I can do in my posts to help I am glad to do. Then you will see that this is vital stuff and test your premises, and find the truth.

Also, most people around here talk about morality in terms of UPB, which is not so much a method of "dishing out claims about morality" but more about analyzing claims that are dished out.  It might be hard to grasp, but there is no positive morality around here.

Hang on, what?

Central to FDR is the 'argument from morality' and I expect everyone to rally around that crucial pillar. Ethics is more than preferable behavior, ethics is descriptive and prescriptive of and for the nature of man. You may have neglected your moral knowledge but I hardly think it's characteristic of this board as it would be completely at odds with the purpose and teachings.

This enterprise has never been sold off as a big opinions fest. The fact that that's what I keep getting is an aberration, not the norm I expect.

Rick Giles:

I'm with you there, Restoring, but your comments do fall short of what I want to know. Because clearly you are right and sex is more to us than is dreamt of by a biologist qua biology. But I read posts on this board and I listen to the podcasts that make seemingly informed judgements about sex but there's zero philosophical back-up to support it. That's why I started the thread, to get the answers FDR claims to have.

Rick, I am fascinated with your goal in this matter.  There is a dual-use of the word "value", and it is confusing.  The values that I am describing are those of repeatable observation.  It is easy for one to scoff at the notion that objective value can be partially ascertained by subjective observation.  It may very well be that one single act of measurement is a poor tool.  If first impression or judgment is in a state of error, then the error is likely to diminish after repeated efforts.  Whatever value results from this process is hopefully a repeatably proven limit so to speak.

The philosophical foundation, as I understand it being logically sustained, is that whatever objective reality exists we can still only make observations in order to contribute to our knowledge.  If we hold firm to the idea that "value is whatever we observe it to be", then through mistakes and differing environmental conditions we can with total validity say that these values do actually change.  If we instead suppose "values exist" in some objective sense, then it is meaningless to claim we can know those values because our knowledge is limited to experience and observation.  On the bright side, the rational understanding of values can be accomplished in principle by repetition of results among independent attempts.

In biology if you examine the sexual behavior of different species, some animals have evolved bright colors, elaborate sounds, insects communicate with flashes of light, birds engage in lengthy dance rituals, and there are also complex social competitions.  Many of these have little to do with individual survival, but they give the individual some "barter" among other individuals primarily (but not exclusively) aimed at reproduction.  It is like all living species are equipped to climb the evolutionary ladder using sexuality as their engine.   Why do I point this out, and what the heck does it have to do with the individual's value of sex?   If all lifeforms evolve in this manner, then I think the probability is good that the individuals benefit by learning to constructively explore their sexual pleasures even when the species benefit in this area is kept close to neutral.  The upshot to the individual can exceed the risk.  The firefly of the future might benefit from its light in other ways than mating, just as the human has been inspired and sometimes invents new philosophical and scientific ideas by virtue of the sexual imagination.

Restoring,

There is a dual-use of the word "value", and it is confusing.  The values that I am describing are those of repeatable observation.

If we instead suppose "values exist" in some objective sense, then it is meaningless to claim we can know those values because our knowledge is limited to experience and observation.  On the bright side, the rational understanding of values can be accomplished in principle by repetition of results among independent attempts.

There's nothing wrong with getting to the truth that way, except that you are re-inventing the wheel and overlooking what you already know about morality which will let you derive much much more. I can show you a moral code that applies to you and will save you the pain and blood of trial and error to re-invent what has already been well established. And I can give you a 'Pythagoras formula' that will save you from having to re-measure every angle you encounter as if angles had no principles commanding them.

For example, we already know what a man is don't we? And because of his nature we can see, as night follows day, that man must be free! That's a top value for man that is implicit in his very nature. Do you really need to waste your time trying to find that one out through inductive reasoning? Have you, or are you going to, hope to blunder upon this by experience and observation and repitition? There is no need!

It is likewise for all man's values. Each is implicit in his nature- reason, purpose, self-esteam, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productivity, pride, etc.

Now, if sex is a rational value that belongs in that list we ought to be able to derive it from man's nature. We ought to be able to say yay or nay to it, when it is rational, who it is rational to do it with, and in what circumstances. And we ought to be able to explain why, with reference to man's nature and moral code in complete certainty. I thought that was self-evident.

I also thought that, since judgements about sex were being made on FDR that they had been carefully thought out and were avaliable. They're not. Avaliable on request then? Nope!

How come people around here are acting like they've got the conclusions then unless they've also got the philosophical back-up to support it? Wo dude, that's one question too many!

For example, we already know what a man is don't we? And because of his nature we can see, as night follows day, that man must be free! That's a top value for man that is implicit in his very nature.

I am guessing that you have some background of philosophy behind this which I am not precisely aware of, but I don't think your statement is as self-evident as you think.  There is, of course, no such thing as 'man' nor 'man's nature'.  There are only individual men and their natures.  I am not going to deny that there are logical and physiological facts they have in common, of course.  The top value for a specifc person might be said to be his freedom.  It might even be proven that, by some definition, a man must value his freedom, since it implies that he would choose his own action and not have it dictated against his will.  But isn't power a far more fundamental component of what men really place as their 'top value'?  Isn't what they want to be 'free' from something, which is merely to be rid of it, but to be free from constraints upon the action of his will.  And what is not reduceable in his relationship to power?  But a specific individual who desires power (for purposes of satisfaction) is certainly not 'man' as an abstract nor is he in a position to either choose or deny the freedom of 'man'; the individual is only in a position to excercise his power in pursuit of his ends.  He does not need to be consistent with all men's desire precisely because he is not all men, but a unique individual who is only subject to and capable of self-satisfaction.

This is just by way of saying that the self-evident is rarely obvious and seldom well understood.  It would help, for example, to know why something of such obvious utility would be so totally overlooked by people who are trying to prove precisely what you intend to prove?  It does not seem, empirically, that it really is self-evident either to supporters or detractors.

 I am guessing that you have some background of philosophy behind this which I am not precisely aware of,

I do indeed.

isn't power a far more fundamental component of what men really place as their 'top value'?

No I don't think it is at all, and with very good reason.

But I'm not focused on what man's top value is, only on the fact that it can be determined by reference to man's nature.

I respect what you say, that there is no such thing as man's nature. No such thing as Pythagoras theorem either.

He does not need to be consistent with all men's desire precisely because he is not all men, but a unique individual who is only subject to and capable of self-satisfaction.

He is unique, yes, but a unique manifestation of a specific type of entity. The essential attributes of this specific entity are common among all sub-species of that entity.

eg essays, novels, notes, origami, and wasps nests are all organisations of paper. These specific "unique individuals" have their own specific character but also are made of paper and are subject to the nature of paper. They're all combustable.

So, if you consider any unique man it is possible to stipulate facts about his nature before you even know specifics about his personality. Perhaps that he is bipedal, and combustable.

It would help, for example, to know why something of such obvious utility would be so totally overlooked by people who are trying to prove precisely what you intend to prove?  It does not seem, empirically, that it really is self-evident either to supporters or detractors.

Inexplicable evasion, indeed.

This form of reasoning, as practised by millions of students of the triangle, is quite able to be applied even by uneducated persons. Of course, if you're wretched at trigonometry you might like to obscure your workings from view while praising to high heaven its conclusions in order to (1.) blend in with the status quo, and (2.) enjoy the wonderful fruits of truth even if it is not understood. 

The notion that there is only a single positive or non-contradictory ultimate end, or that all ends are actually compatible and can be given rational preference has never really seen much in the way of factual support, either.  Even if it could be proven, the notion that man's 'nature' implies anything specific about values other than some vague abillity to possess them is really not something that makes a lot of sense to me, considering just what it means to be an individual human and to possess values.  There is, in fact, no reason that a person could not actually desire to kill everyone.  A moral theory which does not possess prescriptive arguments is not a moral theory.  But prescriptive arguments are inherently irrelevant when they refer to anything except individual values.

This, of course, is a partial restatement why I think the whole business is doomed to begin with.

But prescriptive arguments are inherently irrelevant when they refer to anything except individual values.

So, is the above assertion objectively true, or is it merely an individual (and I presume therefore) subjective value?

bockman:

 

So, is the above assertion objectively true, or is it merely an individual (and I presume therefore) subjective value?

I certainly think that it is objectively true that prescriptions outside of individual values are inherently nonsensical.  But there is no relationship between epistemologically valid relationships and normative prescriptions.  It's non sequitur to try to refute me in this manner.  Normative prescriptions rely on values as a given, the actual preferences of a person can not be critiqued in the same manner.  What is desired is a fact, and is not subject to any criticism whatsoever.  Also, as value is existentially unique, it is logical nonsense to claim that one 'shouldn't' hold a preference.

   i feel like this conversation goes on and on in circles neither one is relinquishing thier post/arguement. i feel it is almost impossible to make a comment without extensive rigorous philosophical research, that a basic logical arguement can be lost in deconstructive rhetoric. Rhetoric that  does not  focus on any of the emotional value  one experieces in relationships. It is as if we are a duality of mind and body and that mind is superior to body and not symbiotic. as if the Psychological rammifications of promiscuity are a psuedo-science that distance from emotion is paramount. this derrida/ wittengstein approach to sex and ethics is a empty existential reflection of ourselves, they are isolated magic mirrors reflecting only that which we want to see. Not only do i feel this is a empty existence it is a self destructive one if we negate the validity of our feelings and thier transcendant meaning in others as mere opinion we not only isolate ourselves from others in our introverted code of opinionated ethics. we also lose the ability to sympathize with others. Suscribing to the sacrosanct validity of whim to me does not seem to hold value. Of course i may be utterly wrong,  but  the shared  relationship of  emotion  and reason, or  body and mind  seem  to me to  point to the closest thing i can call fact reason without emotion seems dead and inwardly corrosive. admitting to a philosophy of whim is admitting to the idea that there are no truths within the web of the mind and emotion. therefore one cannot elevate anyone because none of your proofs are empirical but rather whimsical musings.  love can never be established because there is no plane for you to meet ethicly or in principle, reconciliations are impossible and one can only truly be advesarial because there is no structure on which to lay a foundation for aspiration so to improve the relationship. sex without substance is debilitating to the subconscious and hollows out the ego replacing it with bravado and a insecure emptyness that generates a emotional distance from ever getting close to others if done regularly.

Of course this is just my theory so take it with a sahara of salt thank you

You are right in saying that there is a fundamental unreality in many ethical arguments, and I think that this stems from the fact that ethics stem from fallacious premises to begin with.  If we dispose of the idea altogether and resort to asking questions about the logical and empirical capacity of our actions to achieve our ends we will get somewhere.  But as long as prescriptions not based on value-appeal are telling people that our ends are better than theirs 'because' it is ethical, the imaginary will often be a priority over the reality.

I tend to disagree with some of your characterizations, though, as I think the fundamental problem is that there really never can be an 'ethical' meeting-ground because if everyone is navigating by a nonsensical map it's really an accident if they happen to meet up.  I would say that the alienation of the validity of our personal validations stems precisely from 'moralizing', which disguises our beliefs as a Universal truth while simeaultaneously denying the existential and causal responsibility we have of belief.  To make this statement somewhat clearer, morality not only says, "you should do this" it also (by implication) claims that a person has no real choice or control over what is good or what he should do.  It is only the habit of relying on moral nonsense that leads people to conclude that without morality we should all have nothing to say about Hitler.  But this is obviously false.  Just because Hitler is not 'evil' does not mean that I like him, or that I do not have actual objections to his behaviour.  I require no more special goad to oppose Hitler than I do to eat or refrain from attacking people.  Likewise, morality has never stopped or prevented anyone from doing anything.  It all hinges on an individual deciding to take action on their preferences and the success that individual had.  Nobody has ever not been a killer because of morality, though they may have not been a killer because they believed the claim that killing was 'wrong' regardless of its actual status in relation to their ends and means.

Rick Giles:

For example, we already know what a man is don't we? And because of his nature we can see, as night follows day, that man must be free! That's a top value for man that is implicit in his very nature. Do you really need to waste your time trying to find that one out through inductive reasoning? Have you, or are you going to, hope to blunder upon this by experience and observation and repitition? There is no need!

Rick, that is very interesting. Are you defining a man, or describing him?  The methodology of deriving a truth and then applying it without full knowledge of the statistics seems to be a failure-prone effort, because one must take into account the odds of being correct when the individual is considered.  We really don't know "what a man is", we only know "what we have previously observed past men to be".  Before the first human was dissected, I would imagine there was little knowledge of the heart and lungs.  Until the last century or so, the brain was not generally considered the center of intelligence.

So I would only partially agree with Vichy that empirically there is no such thing as "man's nature" at least when talking about just one individual, because all individuals have proven themselves to defy this "nature" from time-to-time.  That is not to say humans are so special because of that defiance.   All physical entities are likely to be guided by uncertainties, but instead our uniqueness is that we happen to be good at observing when our behavior differs from the more probable options (what some philosopher's might call the "ought" once the paradigm of choice is discussed).  In contrast to microbes, that is for us rational beings, there is a sensitivity to a multitude of distant individuals.  It is that long-range observational capacity which gives "man's nature" some kind of meaning that we can describe as different than a nature that isn't man's (it is a matter of degree).  When that process is repeatedly and reliably done, we stamp the word "principle" on it.  I would say man's nature is therefore real, in that particular sense, just as individuals "are real" despite really being just masses of cells shifting across the earth.

I am not just saying this to create some kind of long and difficult road.  All of the values you point out (such as freedom, honesty, justice, etc.) emerge not because they are established by theorem like Pythagoras, nor are they "unreal".  They are probabilistically established attracting points, toward which human behavior is guided by survival and other needs.  Sex is much the same, and like all human drives, intellectual or not, we can either acknowledge our true attractions or else deny them by creating illusion and fantasy.

Of course, I am not sure I have the right conclusions.  I have thought about these matters quite a bit!  Like you, I would like to find the strongest philosophical back-up.  Sadly, such efforts are all too often clouded by ambiguity of words.