User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-09-28 at 8:45 AM UTCHonest question lanyard, how is ought to be not an opinion? There's some moral, understood standard that we're not collectively aware of? Like a utopia?
How can an ought to be statement be based on facts?
Is there a mathematical formula that describes the ought? -
2018-09-28 at 8:51 AM UTC
-
2018-09-28 at 8:54 AM UTC
-
2018-09-28 at 10:48 AM UTC
-
2018-09-28 at 11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny you're failing to understand what is meant when I speak about how the world ought to be if you think I'm talking about opinions.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–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=wE/Y
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Then please explain what you mean. -
2018-09-28 at 11:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Honest question lanyard, how is ought to be not an opinion? There's some moral, understood standard that we're not collectively aware of? Like a utopia?
How can an ought to be statement be based on facts?
Is there a mathematical formula that describes the ought?
He isn't claiming his statements are objective. Only logically consistent within his chosen moral framework.
Originally posted by Obbe His "moral statements" may be logically consistent within the moral framework he has chosen to adhere to, but they are not statements of truth because they are not statements about how the world really is or how it really isn't. Nobody has any obligation to recognize or accept someone's moral framework or their conclusions.
-
2018-09-28 at 11:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny
What about it doesn't make sense?
On the contrary, that's not what "the way the world ought to be" is. Even if you think I've picked some strange definition for morality or ought statements (although I think it's really a pretty standard understanding that family of phrases), you're failing to understand what is meant when I speak about how the world ought to be if you think I'm talking about opinions.
He picked the definition the rest of world goes by. It's in the dictionary. You should read it sometime. -
2018-09-28 at 12:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe The "way the world should be" exists only in imagination.
Do you think imagination is some magic phenomenon that arbitrarily emerges from your ass and the spirit of god, or do you acknowledge it is some kind of natural/evolved phenomenon that is consequential to real agents that exist within the real world?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-28 at 12:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe His "moral statements" may be logically consistent within the moral framework he has chosen to adhere to, but they are not statements of truth because they are not statements about how the world really is or how it really isn't. Nobody has any obligation to recognize or accept someone's moral framework or their conclusions.
Regardless of your moral framework, you have no choice but to adhere to egoist principles and the subsequent, predicted outcomes. -
2018-09-28 at 1:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Honest question lanyard, how is ought to be not an opinion? There's some moral, understood standard that we're not collectively aware of? Like a utopia?
Ought statements can be a person's opinion in the same sense that is statements can be. I can have an opinion about the shape of the earth and I can have an opinion about how we should treat animals. It's obvious that some opinions about the shape of the earth are true, while others are not. "Is statements" about the shape of the world express something about the world, they may not be true, but there is a fact of the matter The point I'm making is simply that when I talk about "ought statements" I'm talking about statements that have this same quality: they're either true or they aren't.
In this last little branch of this sprawling thread I haven't yet asserted that any particular ought statement is true. If you think there's just no objective moral demands upon us then you think that the value of every ought statement is false, as there is nothing that ought to be. That's fine. The point I've been making is simply about what is meat by ought statements, this is statements about how the world actually should be rather that simply how I want it do be. I've brought up a couple of times now that it's possible to hold different opinions about how you want the world to be and how you think the would should be, which at very least should immediately rule out the notion that ought statements simply express desire.Is there a mathematical formula that describes the ought?
There are many things which are the case which are not described my a mathematical formula. There is no mathematical formula that describes propositions like "Trump is the president of the US" or "my head hurts" but these are obviously things with truth values, and further which seem something we could investigate and discover the truth of.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-28 at 2:04 PM UTCLammy, kin u find it in ur heart to unbann squirrels maine account please,, he's a good faggot
-
2018-09-28 at 2:06 PM UTCThey're called universal truths, Lanny. And, yes, as you say, they do exist.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-28 at 2:16 PM UTCIs it morally good or bad to save a fly from a spider web?
-
2018-09-28 at 2:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny There are many things which are the case which are not described my a mathematical formula. There is no mathematical formula that describes propositions like "Trump is the president of the US" or "my head hurts" but these are obviously things with truth values, and further which seem something we could investigate and discover the truth of.
If you are a naturalist, then your best guess should be that these things are in fact described by mathematical equations. So are opinions and lights. In theory, these are simply emergent phenomena within a system with a relatively simple set of rules.
But there is no need for these to be available to us, for them to exist.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-28 at 2:26 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-28 at 2:26 PM UTCCaptain Falcon?
-
2018-09-28 at 3:02 PM UTC
-
2018-09-28 at 3:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Do you think imagination is some magic phenomenon that arbitrarily emerges from your ass and the spirit of god, or do you acknowledge it is some kind of natural/evolved phenomenon that is consequential to real agents that exist within the real world?
If I imagine you shitting your pants would you recognize it as real? -
2018-09-28 at 3:08 PM UTC
-
2018-09-28 at 3:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by AL-LADdin If you are a naturalist, then your best guess should be that these things are in fact described by mathematical equations. So are opinions and lights. In theory, these are simply emergent phenomena within a system with a relatively simple set of rules.
Well like you said, even if this is your position it still renders the objection "we have no mathematical description of ethics" inert since, like you said, we don't need to have formed such a description for it to exist (and by extension for the phenomena described to have a status as objective).
But to go off on a tangent that doesn't really matter a little bit, I don't think "everything is described by mathematical equations" really follows from naturalism. The meaning of emergent properties is that they're properties not possessed in component parts, or at a lower level. Like sure, maybe we can give a mathematical account of the physical components of a painting, but in doing so we aren't describing the artistic properties of that painting. Like maybe we can even reconstruct the artistic properties from the physical ones (although in the case of art we'd probably also have to consider a huge array of cultural systems) but that doesn't mean we have a mathematical description of art.
It's not obvious at all that we could write some kind of formula or function from physical descriptions of art to artistic meaning chiefly because artistic properties don't seem to be mathematical. There is no mathematical object to represent them, it's almost absurd to think of some art evaluation function which takes is an sub-atomic description of the mona lisa and produces "5212 artons" or something. That's not to say the artistic properties of a painting aren't emergent from its physical properties, simply that being able to mathematically describe properties does not mean being able to do the same same for emergent properties.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
