The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

The problem with debate is that "these things are wrong wrong wrong - now prove to me they're not" doesn't leave any room for debate.  It comes across as "hey, assholes, prove to me you're not an asshole".  Which ... doesn't leave a lot of room for actual discussion, really.

Normally I would agree with you. However, when the argument I'm responding to is: "people are assholes so I'm fine choosing to let a stranger die", I don't feel wrong in pointing out that that is also asshole behavior. (For those just joining us, that wasn't the argument initially made on this forum, this forum is just where I addressed my reaction to that.)

As far as the peach - you're saying the only consequences that you care about are the ones to you.  But there are /other consequences/.  Someone is out a peach, you have turned into a thief, you've caused someone some level of difficulty ... Just because the consequences don't affect /you personally/ doesn't mean they don't exist.

I didn't say that was all I cared about. I was just describing the types of consequences  that exist and how they are applied. (I don't steal peaches either, btw. It was just an analogy. )

I mean - I do not want to be the kind of person that steals food from other people.  That is a consequence that would happen from food-theft, regardless of anyone else knowing it was me.  I don't want to be that person, and /that consequence/ would stop me regardless of ALL OTHER things.

"is this the person I want to be" could probably sum up most of my ethical standards.  Which - really, is pretty damn strict.  There's a LOT of places I don't want to end up.

I think you think I'm saying that personal (and it'd probably be good to add internal) consequences don't exist. I'm simply saying that they don't exist without humans applying and imposing them on themselves and others.

A child raised by wolves is not going to learn from the natural, physical world that he shouldn't kill or that he would be a murderer. The natural, physical world is full of animals killing each other all the time over food, mates, and basic survival. He would learn from people that it's not ok to kill for food or a mate.

I'm saying that those consequences do exist but they rely on people to exist. They do not exist naturally. So if people don't apply and impose ethics on each other (children, spouses, coworkers, communities) then there wouldn't be any ethics or ethical consequences


(None of what I'm saying here is a judgement call on the personal ethics you've shared with me, either.)

Someone sent me this after it was posted yesterday. Thought those who participated here might get a chuckle out of it.

existential comics

The punchline reminds me of the old cliche, "why won't you tolerate my intolerance".

In that it implies that Relativist Character is being hypocritical for (1) stating that morals are a matter of opinion, and then (2) acting according to his own opinion.

It implies that the only possible reason for someone to support a moral position is because they consider it objectively True, and the only possible reason to object to a moral position is because it is objectively false.

In the situation in the comic, when Relativist Character objects to Moral Realist Character's behavior, it is not necessarily because that behavior is objectively Wrong; it could be that he finds such behavior unpleasant, or because his culture regards such behavior as improper.

If we say that morals are merely opinions, we are basically saying that no world is better than any other world

 
No, we are saying that we can't formulate a single definition of "better" in this context.

It would mean there was no difference between suffering and happiness

Or, that there isn't an objective definition of 'suffering' and 'happiness'. Also, false dichotomy.

When I say "The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is the only moral good," my statement is either true or false, just like most other statements.

Or partly true, sometimes true, ambiguous, paradoxical, metaphorical ... there are a lot of things a statement can be, between and around "true" and "false".

I really don't think formal true/false logic is an adequate tool for thinking about morality. *goes off to look for resources on polyvalent logic*.

No, we are saying that we can't formulate a single definition of "better" in this context.

One isn't trying to find the single definition of "better". One is trying to find the most plausible definition. Any given definition of "better" may be correct, but not for any given scenario.

The comic is right, any time you try to define a "better" inclusive of every possibility and opinion, the argument becomes nonsensical.

Or partly true, sometimes true, ambiguous, paradoxical, metaphorical ... there are a lot of things a statement can be, between and around "true" and "false".

I really don't think formal true/false logic is an adequate tool for thinking about morality. *goes off to look for resources on polyvalent logic*.

This is why we've discussed truth-value. Logic in morality isn't used to judge the content of an argument, but to find contradictions within the argument's premise. If a moral premise contradicts its moral conclusion then it just isn't a valid argument. This doesn't tell us if the the moral belief is possible or impossible, correct or incorrect, but if the argument for it is reasonable or unreasonable.

Not that reason should be the only determining factor of a thing's value, but I think it's better to include it then to leave it out altogether.

Nor do I.  But then, as a relativist, I wouldn't.

Nicely said.  I'd be interested in any sources you find, btw.

 
Fuzzy logic is just allowing for truth values that are any real number between 0 and 1, instead of truth values that can only be 0 or 1.
 
The active people in this thread have already discussed multiple times that we're talking degrees of truth and not absolute truths. It probably needs to be said:  do not conflate a comic (jest, humor, satire) with the actual position of the people you are interacting with in this thread.

I'd be interested in any sources you find, btw.

Likely (one of) my next research projects; I'll share results on the board when/if I find any.

Fuzzy logic is just allowing for truth values that are any real number between 0 and 1, instead of truth values that can only be 0 or 1.

 
Bolding mine. Fuzzy logic is a lot more complex than that. It also allows for things like a statement having more than one value simultaneously, or contradictory statements having the same value.

And that's when it's being used in computing; I was using 'polyalent logic' in the sense that Hornung uses in the book The One and the Many, to talk about the apparent contradictions in Egyptian mythology.

In the real world whether a statement is true or false varies with conditions/environment.

 
Or, indeed, on the location of the observer, as in general relativity. IMO, discussing the 'most plausible' form of morality is rather like looking for the center of the universe.

I'm going to actually pull up some definitions of some terms, because I think it is worth stopping with the conflating of different positions on the nature of morality.
 

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. It does not deny outright the truth-value or justification of moral statements (as some forms of Moral Anti-Realism do), but affirms relative forms of them.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_relativism.html

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them

From http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source.

From http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html

Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the person of interest. Another way of looking at this is that judgments about human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited to, perception.

From http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethical_subjectivism.html

Moral Nihilism is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that ethical claims are generally false. It holds that there are no objective moral facts or true propositions - that nothing is morally good, bad, wrong, right, etc - because there are no moral truths (e.g. a moral nihilist would say that murder is not wrong, but neither is it right).

It differs from Ethical Subjectivism, and Moral Relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but do not assign any static truth-values to moral statements.

From http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_nihilism.html

I think that covers everything that's come up in the thread.