Refute me babies!

[Whaleboy]

Well... it'd work wouldn't it?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Theben
In the absence of anything to judge, there are no points to make.

And TheBen destroys your world view in the first post......

we decide on the vantage points through either the power of the majority, or the power of the minority-saying there are no standards leaves you with nothing.

[Ben Kenobi]

since I believe that moral absolutes do not exist.

We have established holes in the notion of quantitative logic, the problems of qualitative logic is even worse!

There are many problems with Kant, this is not one of them. You have not established either premise, neither the first, that God cannot exist, nor the second, that moral absolutes do not exist. It is not enough to merely say, prove it to me, because we are assessing weaknesses in your own moral philosophy. You are the one who needs to show the justifications behind both of these premisses before we can discuss anything further.

And saying that these are metaethical concerns only further weakens your credibility, since these issues still need to be addressed.

And you are still caught in the trap of relativism. You cannot make the leap from saying that all points are equally valid, to one ought to believe in Liberalism over Tolitarianism, and Pacifism over Might makes right without smuggling other ideas into moral relativism.

Whaleboy, if you want any credibility I suggest you abandon the notion of contextual morality, since that means what whatever I believe ought to be right. Is there any point in which your behavior can be deemed wrong under contextual morality?

[Ben Kenobi]

If he believes what he says? I would believe it to be true for him, but not true for me, and my position to not be necessarily ultimately true.

I would think most of us would say that he's a crazy loon.

[Whaleboy]

"In the absence of anything to judge, there are no points to make."

And TheBen destroys your world view in the first post......

we decide on the vantage points through either the power of the majority, or the power of the minority-saying there are no standards leaves you with nothing.

One can make points as a subjective, without the need for judgement. We all judge as subjectives and pseudo-objectives. In the absense of the latter, all subjectives are equally valid, and we cannot judge. So in that sense, he is correct, but that is merely a statement of my argument, not a refutation. Fortunately, as subjectives, we can judge!

we decide on the vantage points through either the power of the majority, or the power of the minority-saying there are no standards leaves you with nothing.

Please address the court analogy.

There are many problems with Kant, this is not one of them. You have not established either premise, neither the first, that God cannot exist, nor the second, that moral absolutes do not exist. It is not enough to merely say, prove it to me, because we are assessing weaknesses in your own moral philosophy. You are the one who needs to show the justifications behind both of these premisses before we can discuss anything further.

Fair enough, but for now, suffice that it is an assumption of my argument that god does not exist, nor do moral absolutes. To refute my argument, you need to show that they do. Incidentally, mine is not a moral philosophy per se.

And saying that these are metaethical concerns only further weakens your credibility, since these issues still need to be addressed.

Regard them as assumptions at this stage, I'll get onto it when I've finished a sociology essay.

And you are still caught in the trap of relativism. You cannot make the leap from saying that all points are equally valid, to one ought to believe in Liberalism over Tolitarianism, and Pacifism over Might makes right without smuggling other ideas into moral relativism.

On the contrary, as a relativist, I can say that others should be relativists, and its consequential theories, but I would not support their imposition, any more than any other idea.

Whaleboy, if you want any credibility I suggest you abandon the notion of contextual morality, since that means what whatever I believe ought to be right. Is there any point in which your behavior can be deemed wrong under contextual morality?

In a certain context, yes, but not ultimately. Within relativism, the breach of relativism can be deemed as wrong, but relativists have to accept their own concepts subjective limitations.

"since that means what whatever I believe ought to be right."

But that is my position.

I would think most of us would say that he's a crazy loon.

Most of us are too quick to judge, too slow to understand, and too willing to reside our minds within our own subjectivity, without taking them to emulate pseudo-objectivity.

[Ben Kenobi]

On the contrary, as a relativist, I can say that others should be relativists, and its consequential theories, but I would not support their imposition, any more than any other idea.

'Should' = imposition.

Anything else is just doublespeak.

Don't mind me, I've got my last exam today, and I can't wait to write it and go home.

As for the purple tree, we would still call the man a crazy loon, because we believe trees are really green. The point I'm trying to make is that it makes no sense to say that everything is relative because in order to function in our daily lives, we make moral judgments.

You aren't a relativist, you are just trying to justify your positions without having to ever say you are wrong. That's just too bad, because in the real world, we can and often do make mistakes.

"since that means what whatever I believe ought to be right."

So if you believed Jews make great luncheon meat for superior races, would this be a correct belief?

[Whaleboy]

'Should' = imposition.

No, should = influence, in otherwords I'll ask them or propose a certain action.

Must = influence, with more desperation

Must, and if you don't i'll do horrible things to your dog = imposition.

Don't mind me, I've got my last exam today, and I can't wait to write it and go home.

Good luck!!

As for the purple tree, we would still call the man a crazy loon, because we believe trees are really green. The point I'm trying to make is that it makes no sense to say that everything is relative because in order to function in our daily lives, we make moral judgments.

So in our daily lives, we believe that we are correct. Ok thats fine, but I don't and relativism doens't require it. Relativism merely requires you dont impose your view upon another. Unless I believe with 100%, infinite certainty that trees are green, (and I dont with infinite degree of certainty), then my subjectivity remains. And I can still function in daily life while recognising others may thing trees are purple. Wheres Verres when you need her?

You aren't a relativist, you are just trying to justify your positions without having to ever say you are wrong. That's just too bad, because in the real world, we can and often do make mistakes.

wtf??

Ahem, contextual mistakes, "I made the wrong decision for a given context". Since in many cases, you won't leave that context, then for the further context of your life, you made a mistake for that of your life. Which is what we would call "making a mistake".

So if you believed Jews make great luncheon meat for superior races, would this be a correct belief?

A correct belief for me? No. For others? Yes. And their view is as valid as my own. Whereas Kant would say that there are intrinsic "correct" beliefs, that is unsatisfactory for me.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ok, now methinks is the time to answer that "Oh it won't work" responses. True, it wont. This thread is merely about a logical device.

Hmmm... The first post seemed to suggest that you were talking about reality, with applying it to politics. If that isn't the case, then yes, it is coherant.

It still has no point though

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You're not the one who has had three blood tests in as many months

My point exactly

Originally posted by Whaleboy
A strange position, given such examples as the legal system, and your well known distaste for vigilantism of both individuals and unilateralist nations. Methinks another case of "lets antagonise Ben for fun"

No, simply taking IWs quote, and illuding it to the point that there is no use for this. You admitted this was about the metaphysical, and that you don't get bogged down with practical matters, such as application. Do you admit that it wouldn't work but then disagree that it is "irrelevant to practical matters such as reality."?

I'm saying that the idea that without wildcards, all things are equal, has no use in reality because there are always wildcards. That was what the "completely irrelevant" was meant to highlight.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Hence we are able to judge. Remove the judge. All is equally valid. Consider the Iraq war. The UN, disregarded by one of the subjective positions, and that imposes itself upon another. The UN of course, with its wildcards, is able to judge and not remain neutral for long but it is that process of judging that gives an option greater validity.

Why? If it has wildcards, and thus is subjective, why is it more valid? How can it's subjective be more valid than another one, usuing relativism?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
An objective is defined as independent to the subjectives. It could be the UN, it could be another nation, that is satisfactory, but for reasons of global consensus, I would prefer the UN, that is irrelevant. It needs to be independent, in other words, no interests with either subjective. Its wildcards are pre-determined, and where they are not, they should be balanced (another reason a body like the UN makes a better judge).

But the UN isn't independant. It is made up of those nations, and thus is not removed from it. For something to be independant, it would have to have no wildcards with relation to that. And then which independant do you use, since many would have very different opinions still. You would need someone who it totally objective to be a non-subjective judge, and that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You need to show this.

If you try to pass off

It just so happens that certain metaphysical logic is applicable, as much of it is, to this phenomenological reality.

without justification, then I think I'm quite entitled to point out that it may not be. I did not say it wasn't. I'm not trying to show it wasn't, thus I don't need to show it. However since you have not proved it, there is an element of doubt, and thus, it may, or may not be, as I stated.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Remember the issue of context. If we're riding with the pseudo-objective, we have made a pseudo-objective decision. For example, where our opinions are riding on the result of a court judgement.

But for someone not to be subjective, they need not to have any wildcards. Since everyone does, no-one is not subjective. Thus any imposition of a pseudo objective would be imposing a subjective, since they would have wildcards.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I concur, but you misunderstand. You are treating this overall. Consider the question of one context, subjective A, vs subjective B, + stranger (PO) C.

The stranger still has wildcards, thus is subjective. If the pseudo objective is a subjective on a different level, then looking at it from that level gives you three different subjectives. The fact that lower down one appears to be an objective, sicne they still have wildcards, they are still a subjective.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not within a certain context.

Yes, they do. They have wildcards. The judge could be trying to seem tough on drink driving, or something, in order to keep his job. He may be more learned, in that he has studied the law, and he may have fewer wildcards, but he still has wildcards. Moreover, as posted above, looking at it fromthe view of something completely objective, it would just see many subjectives, since they are all opinions. The judge's opinion is still that, an opinion. It is subjective. If you believe that all subjectives are equally valid, then it is equally valid. I don't. I think he is more valid because he has fewer wildcards, and because he is more knowledgable on the law. However his opinion is still subjective, since he is human.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Because metaphysical and metaethical logic has implications in "the real world". Consider the question of utility as an example of that!

Then why not debate the real world implications? You have said this is purely a metaphysical debate, and not to debate reality, but you post that in the first post, which is basd in reality, so you claim.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, because the consequences of this idea for the real world are merely implications and, well, consequences of it, not an application of it.

That doesn't stop either the point that it is useless in reality, or that when you talk in analogies, or about politics, that you talk in the real world, but the fact that it doesn't work in reality is not able to dispute it.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'll just say that in general, like all concepts, it can only be applied piece by piece. You people need to show my why it is "completely, utterly useless".

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Thats exactly it!! I'm trying to make people who like debating with me for dubious reasons (sic Drogue ) look like idiots! jk

Dubious reasons? I agree with that too. You cannot distinguish between two things without knowing at least one discriminating criterion. That much is simply common sense. However since there always is, else the two things would be the same, that sentance is "completely [and] utterly useless". When it comes to two opinions, if they are not exactly the same, there is a discriminating criteria, and hence you can distinguish between them.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would think most of us would say that he's a crazy loon.

Or that he is colourblind

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

When commies and capitalists all team up to tell Whaleboy he's wrong then you know he's lost touch with reality.

What if commies and capitalists agree with him on the other side?

Then that would mean everyone has lost touch with reality.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The only "objective" morality I can see existing is codes based on the socio-biological realities of the animal homo sapiens: there are behaviors that in the long and short term are damaging to the cohesion of human social structures and human bodies and if one decides that the stable continuation of both or either are of fundamental importance to human beings (and how could they not?), then you make rules againts these damaging behaviors, which is why every society has some concept of murder or theft: but more abstract moral codes and certainly any estblished religions are without any form of objective basis.

youre looking at things in the static - at given moments im time thousands of different moral codes have existed - as the cultural anthropologists and their ethnographic studies have shown us - its not at all clear that all those codes are equally viable subject to the stresses of history - I think a case can be made that as history advances the number of viable moral codes narrows considerably. Hegelian solution.

And you are judging only by survival - which is not the only criteria for human fulfillment - it is at least possible that there is some non-arbitrary basis by which the impact of different moral codes on human beings could be judge, pace Nietsche - the classical solution.

And im not ready to give up on Kant.

[Agathon]

That is to say, suppose you have two positions, points of view, people, objects, ideas etc that are opposed to each other, without anything that would judge between them, using a pre-determined set of parameters (wildcards), then the two or more subjectives are necessarily equal.

In an example, say you have two mountains. They are both differerent, i.e., height, weight, composition, width, gradient etc. Mountain A is 10'000 feet and Mountain B is 8'000 feet. You are asked to determine which is the higher mountain. Of course, you say A, because you have a pre-determined notion of "height", its properties and a mental calculus for determining that height. Now imagine you dont know what height is, the outside world and your upbringing (or perhaps even genetics) had not the grace to tell you, and you haven't worked it out yourself. You cannot work out which is taller without that wildcard.

First it isn't people or points of view that are opposed here, but propositions.

If you say that a person has no understanding of the relation "higher than" then there is no argument, because in that case the person cannot even entertain the proposition "X is higher than Y" as a possible object of judgement. A necessary requirement for disagreement is that both parties to the disagreement understand the constituent notions (in this case the relation "higher-than" of the proposition which is the object of disagreement. In the absence of that there is no dispute since they don't know what they are talking about.

Added to that is the problem that you are confusing two different things - truth and justification.

People can perfectly well believe a proposition true as long as they understand it. So I can believe that mountain X is higher than mountain Y whether or not it actually is higher. If I have no justification to believe one way or the other (i.e. I haven't seen or measure them), then that doesn't stop me believing one way or the other. My belief may well be false. In this case the belief is as you say "equal" in a sense because I have no more reason to believe it false than true. A belief doesn't have to be true or justified to make it a belief - that's why false belief is possible. This has nothing to do with justification.

But assume that they know what they are talking about. If they both know what "higher than" means, then they both know what has to be true for something to be higher than another thing. In that case when confronted with the evidence one person ought to yield. If I can't tell what the world has to be like in order for "X is higher than Y" to be true, then I don't understand that proposition.

But if you say that they mean different things by "higher than" then there just is no disagreement. For example if you mean by "higher than", what I mean by "bluer than" then we aren't disagreeing over the proposition "X is higher than Y" but are merely stating two different claims, which may be both true or false or one or the other may be true or false.

So either they mean the same thing and there are objective grounds for settling the dispute, or they don't mean the same thing and there is no dispute.

All the stuff about subjectivity is irrelevant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think a case can be made that as history advances the number of viable moral codes narrows considerably.

As history advances, the world does get smaller, but that leads to one group having more power over the rest of the Earth. The advancement of history allows one moral code to conquer all because the people behind that code can conquer all .

Think about it. The moral code being adopted is the western European one, who have been pushing their code for a while now. As the world gets small, cultural imperialism allows for morals to spread much better than real imperialism (which leads to resentment and throwing of the code of the imperialists).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

However, is there an absence of an impartial Judge who is not limited by the same subjectivity that binds each one of us? Unless you can prove this, one ought not to be so confident in this presupposition.

I guess elijah (my G-d is Yah! - no wonder he changed his login) would deny that any sentient is creature can be impartial - existence implies subjectivity. He doesnt seem to be using an ideal observer definition of ethics.

Note that even if one is a theist, and believes that G-d fits the definition of an ideal observer, and believes in the ideal observer view of ethics, this still doesnt give the answer to concrete ethical issues, unless one believes in a given historical revelation. Otherwise one is left with guessing what the ideal observer wills - and one is forced back on say Kant for specifics of an ethical code - or one may tie the ideal observer to human intuiton - but then one has to deal with the observations of cultural anthropologists - or with the logic of history - Hegel combined with theism.


Note also that beleiving only in the divine inspiration of a historical text is still problematic, since you need to judge which ethical imperatives in such a text are genuinely divine.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I think a case can be made that as history advances the number of viable moral codes narrows considerably.

As history advances, the world does get smaller, but that leads to one group having more power over the rest of the Earth. The advancement of history allows one moral code to conquer all because the people behind that code can conquer all .

Think about it. The moral code being adopted is the western European one, who have been pushing their code for a while now. As the world gets small, cultural imperialism allows for morals to spread much better than real imperialism (which leads to resentment and throwing of the code of the imperialists).

Thats just the point Imran - only those codes that are capable of conquering are historically viable - its not arbitrary - its due to the nature of the code. Once youve adopted the correct code, its unlikely you can be conquered, due to the inherent force of nationalism - which is itself based on the force behind the code - that is to say thymos - the human drive for self assertion - which is fulfilled for all in a society only by "liberal"
democracy. Other codes not consisntent with this system cannot compete technologically or in legitimacy after a certain point in historical development.

See Francise Fukuyama - The End of History and the Last Man.