Objective morality

[Robin Yergenson]

Hi guys,

I’m afraid my schedule prevents me from keeping up with such a fast paced conversation. I don’t see that any of you have attempted to address my three claims. Metacrock, rather than attempt to show the error in them, you map my claims to genetics and determinism. I am not appealing to either. Just because genetics is a factor in defining me as a volitional being rather than as a rock doesn’t mean genetics defines morality. We are volitional beings. Entailed in our nature as rational beings is the need to guide our choices and actions in ways that obtains value. Values are always in the context of the valuer, the one doing the valuing, choosing, and acting. And as I have pointed out before, objective values are not whim based. If you think something is a value when it is really a disvalue then it is really a disvalue whether you realize it or not. As long as objective values with respect to the valuer are the basis for guiding the valuer’s choices and actions, in general the life of the valuer, living and thriving, is going to be at bottom (when the valuer ceases to live, the value system becomes incoherent much like the value system of a rock). In order to obtain living and thriving there are certain actions that you ought to do and there are certain actions that you ought not do. This sure seems to refute the is-ought problem. Could we all just stop with the Hume/MacIntyre/Harris appeals to authority and focus on this argument? And saying things like “You have not done anything to turn an is into an ought. You never will. It can't be done,” doesn’t cut it. I claim,

1. It is a fact that, at least generally speaking, the propensity to flourish is integral to our nature as an organism qua organism.
2. It is a fact that, at least generally speaking, as rational beings, we stand to benefit or to suffer loss by believing, choosing, and acting in particular ways.
3. It is a fact that, at least generally speaking, in accordance with our nature as organisms and in particular as rational volitional beings, in order for the one who’s doing the valuing, choosing, and acting to flourish, that individual ought to prefer to flourish, and that individual ought to act in ways that promote flourishing, and that individual ought not act in ways that adversely affect flourishing.

Come on Miles, Metacrock, runamokmonk, and Met, address the argument please.

Rob

[mdsimpson92]

The thing is, Rob, is that I agree with those principles in general. It appeals to the aristotlean ethicist in me. What I was trying to do was point to how having an inherent telos behind us. Meta and metacrock seem to have responded with the fact that even if we have the intended telso to flourish it does not follow that we necessarily should. So they are somewhat attacking your argument.

I quote met:

(ie There's no reason our built-in purposes or natures, even if those things really exist, "should" be followed. Just as likely that they "should" be overcome. )

He does have a point. I will try to play a bit of devil's advocate to keep you amused. I could argue that there is a part of our nature that is irrational and tends towards malice and violence. We can see that throughout history. Does that mean that there is an ought that we humans should be violent?

On the other hand, I might reply that values can still potentially come from these purposes. They do not necessarily have to be genetic but can come from relationships. For instance, there is values that come with being a "good" husband, or a father, or as a citizen. While these might seem a bit relativist due to what roles are entailed in culture, these responsibilities are still very real and have a purpose base on what a person "is".

Edit: However, I can see a rebuttal coming from my idea being to relativistic. A hitman for the mafia also has a role coming from his "society." So my idea doesn't completely follow through because it doesn't have enough of a universalist punch and has more value in communities.

[runamokmonk]

As long as objective values with respect to the valuer are the basis for guiding the valuer’s choices and actions, in general the life of the valuer, living and thriving, is going to be at bottom (when the valuer ceases to live, the value system becomes incoherent much like the value system of a rock).

I find this to be annoying. The logic that a value system becomes incoherent when the valuer ceases to live is dependent on what the value system is.

IF your value system is that the highest value is one's own life, than ceasing to live, causes the value system to become incoherent.

A value system which inherently becomes incoherent at death, is the logic, of having oneself has the highest value.

IF one values something else, and dies for that something, it is coherent because what is valued is more than one's own existence.

The value system is dependent on the valuer to first exist, but the valuer can value something more than their existence.

And, I might mention, this is focusing on living itself, existence, not some sort of "man qua man", or a life lived for a man, "flourish". And other such phrases such as that which shifts and allows for the argument to go from surivival-living, to something even beyond that, when it fits.

[Robin Yergenson]

Hi Miles,

Thanks for the quick response. You say,

The thing is, Rob, is that I agree with those principles in general. It appeals to the aristotlean ethicist in me.

Does that mean that you agree that the oughts of point 3 follow from the points preceding it? If not why not? And you say,

What I was trying to do was point to how having an inherent telos behind us.

While I agree that there is a moral order, a direction behind us. Is that what you mean by telos? Beings with preferences gives rise to the notion of purpose associated with obtaining those preferences, but I can’t say that there is a purpose behind us. And you say,

Meta and metacrock seem to have responded with the fact that even if we have the intended telos to flourish it does not follow that we necessarily should. So they are somewhat attacking your argument.

I’m not comfortable having to represent a position that I don’t hold and since I don’t expect you to, hopefully they will chime in. But for now you quote met and say,

met wrote:
(ie There's no reason our built-in purposes or natures, even if those things really exist, "should" be followed. Just as likely that they "should" be overcome. )

He does have a point. I will try to play a bit of devil's advocate to keep you amused. I could argue that there is a part of our nature that is irrational and tends towards malice and violence. We can see that throughout history. Does that mean that there is an ought that we humans should be violent?

I agree that most of our predispositions need to be put in perspective and at times even overcome. That is why I will be the first to agree that genetics and determinism do not define morality. The bottom of our objective (non-whim based) value system does. When I cease to exist, so does the objective (non-whim based) value system that pertains to me. That puts my life at the bottom of my value system whether I get it or not. You say,

On the other hand, I might reply that values can still potentially come from these purposes. They do not necessarily have to be genetic but can come from relationships. For instance, there is values that come with being a "good" husband, or a father, or as a citizen. While these might seem a bit relativist due to what roles are entailed in culture, these responsibilities are still very real and have a purpose base on what a person "is".

Edit: However, I can see a rebuttal coming from my idea being to relativistic. A hitman for the mafia also has a role coming from his "society." So my idea doesn't completely follow through because it doesn't have enough of a universalist punch and has more value in communities

We get a great deal of value from personal relationships. And yes, culture is part of the complex set of conditions that need to be taken in context when identifying proper moral actions. The hitman who kills predators who have broken their implicit contractual agreement to recognize the rights of others may actually have a moral basis. The hitman who kills innocent harmonious people has himself broken that implicit contract. Since the contract is in our best interest to honor, and since honouring it only when it is convenient is no contract at all, we “ought” to honor it fully, but this moral ought is rooted in rational self interest, not the will of society, not the will of our genes, and not will of some external authority.

Rob

[Robin Yergenson]

Hi runamokmonk,

I appreciate your quick response. I had said, “As long as objective values with respect to the valuer are the basis for guiding the valuer’s choices and actions, in general the life of the valuer, living and thriving, is going to be at bottom (when the valuer ceases to live, the value system becomes incoherent much like the value system of a rock).” You say,

I find this to be annoying. The logic that a value system becomes incoherent when the valuer ceases to live is dependent on what the value system is.

But recall that while values are always in the context of the valuer, the one doing the valuing, choosing, and acting, objective values are not whim based. If you think something is a value when it is really a disvalue then it is really a disvalue whether you realize it or not. Sacrificing your life for the good of another is not good for your life. This is a fact of reality that is not your choice. Sure you can choose to sacrifice, but you cannot choose whether it is good for you or bad for you. The fact is that it is bad for you. And you say,

IF one values something else, and dies for that something, it is coherent because what is valued is more than one's own existence.

The value system is dependent on the valuer to first exist, but the valuer can value something more than their existence.

If you think something is a value when it is really a disvalue then it is really a disvalue whether you realize it or not. If the valuer does not exist, then the objective values with respect to the valuer no longer exist.

Rob

[runamokmonk]

If you think something is a value when it is really a disvalue then it is really a disvalue whether you realize it or not.

You are telling me what my deepest values should be. You have used the term skyhook, by telling me what my highest values ought to be, are you being a skyhook to me?

Sacrificing your life for the good of another is not good for your life. This is a fact of reality that is not your choice. Sure you can choose to sacrifice, but you cannot choose whether it is good for you or bad for you. The fact is that it is bad for you. And you say,

It does not matter if it is bad for me or not. You are starting off with the logic, that my existence, is of highest value.

If you think something is a value when it is really a disvalue then it is really a disvalue whether you realize it or not. If the valuer does not exist, then the objective values with respect to the valuer no longer exist.

Rob

But what one died for does, a person, or something else. Or, dying for one's principles, and not going against what is the deepest parts of themselves.

[Robin Yergenson]

Hi runamokmonk,

You say,

You are telling me what my deepest values should be. You have used the term skyhook, by telling me what my highest values ought to be, are you being a skyhook to me?

No. I am not telling you what your deepest values should be. I am telling you what your deepest value in fact is. I am stating facts regarding what is of greatest benefit to you as an organism whether you agree or not. Disagreeing with facts is the very definition of error. Facts aren’t something that you or I choose. They are just facts that are actual and that comport with reality. What skyhooks are you suggesting?

Rob

[runamokmonk]

RY

What skyhooks are you suggesting?

In this thread I said this~

runamokmonk: It seems to me, that it is more objective, in the sense of being more impartial, to expand one's values, and I imagine one would then find higher principles and have the ideal of applying them fairly and trying to live by them.

You responded~
"This would be an arbitrary skyhook system as opposed to an actual objective fact-based net benefit to the subject."

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1597&p=18098&hilit=skyhook#wrap

No. I am not telling you what your deepest values should be. I am telling you what your deepest value in fact is.

The fact of something harmful does not tell me what to value or what I ought to do.




RY

I am stating facts regarding what is of greatest benefit to you as an organism whether you agree or not. Disagreeing with facts is the very definition of error. Facts aren’t something that you or I choose.

But, in whatever I value, I am an organism acting as an organism. If, I as organism value something more than my existence, I am acting as an organism.

[runamokmonk]

No. I am not telling you what your deepest values should be. I am telling you what your deepest value in fact is.

No need for a debate then. If it is factually, my deepest value, than there is no need to debate or convince. It would be an actual fact and there would be no one sacrificing their life for another.

But that is not a fact of the human organism now, or in history. And also, that contradicts the fact that other animal organisms have risked, and sacrificed, for others in their species.

[Metacrock]

No. I am not telling you what your deepest values should be. I am telling you what your deepest value in fact is.

No need for a debate then. If it is factually, my deepest value, than there is no need to debate or convince. It would be an actual fact and there would be no one sacrificing their life for another.

But that is not a fact of the human organism now, or in history. And also, that contradicts the fact that other animal organisms have risked, and sacrificed, for others in their species.

I am skeptical of allowing others to tell me what my values are even if they base it on my very words. I'm sure you are too Runamuck?