Originally posted by Lanny
Fine, you can make this objection but your argument has changed from "morality requires everyone to agree on it to be true" to "morality isn't supported by 'concrete, measurable data'" with the tacit premise that a theory needs to be supported supported by 'concrete, measurable data' to be valid or acceptable
My argument encompasses everyone needing to use the same foundation and rules for morality in order for one to justly force moral pressure on another.
That is not to say that a moral system's foundation is true or not, just consistent by all who practice morality, since it is possible for people to be morally consistent, yet use different foundational systems. Those different systems are equally valid because morality is based on feelings. You can say it's about law or canon, but it isn't, as feelings must enter the equation when formulating morality, and men cannot feel each other's feelings, so it unreasonable to assume that two men should always reach the same conclusion on something that requires them to ponder their respective feelings during their reasoning processes.
If canon is accepted as word of God, which you seem to have agreed with earlier, correct me if I am wrong, that is an exception. As I suggested before, morality is about the feelings of human observations. If there are no feelings involved with decsion making, as you could potentially theorize of bacteria or plants (not that I necessary agree with that premise), then there would be no morality extant within such creatures.
with the tacit premise that a theory needs to be supported supported by 'concrete, measurable data' to be valid or acceptable
Yes, my arguement also asserts that theories of how people "ought to think" of their fellow man (ehtics, morality, perhaps other fields) are not calculable, quantifiable, or able to be physically sensed by humans. Therefor, it can not be expected that two men should come to the same moral conclusions, as men will have different definitions of what is good and bad, as I mentioned in my last post:
Does good denote pleasure? Some people may recieve pleasure by punching others in the face. Well-being? What if I consider my well-being to be living in the hospital when I'm not sick becuase I like how it feels? Happy? Perhaps I am happiest killing infidels for Allah. Even if it is some conglomeration of certain states of being, every state can be reached by different means depending on the person.
MID POSIT EDIT: After a quick google search on morality, I believe what I wrote here was in fact an example of the Arguement from Disagreement, which I have not read yet. This may help us progress, or at least get us into more meaty (no pun intended) debate.
That's not a mathematical theorem though. That's you finding that a mathematical model of how collecting coconuts works. If I say "I have two coconuts and I take three coconuts then I should have six coconuts because 2*3=6 but I find I have five" I haven't formed an argument against mathematics, empirical counter evidence, I've simply formed a poor model of coconut collection.
Okay, I agree with you now that mathematical theorems are not empirical. However, unlike morality, math is calcuable and quantifiable, which means it is reasonable to expect two men to always reach the same conclusions. 2+2 is always 4.
Falsifiability is a cornerstone of the modern scientific method, to some the idea of falsification or verification is fundamental to meaning in general.
Yes, we are getting closer.
Feelings about observations, the basis for morality, are not falsifiable, or replicable because I cannot be you and feel as you feel.
MID POSIT EDIT#2::: Perhaps let me take a moment to back it up as well.
I believe we are running into the Is-Ought problem.
EDIT #3:OH MY GOD WE WASTED SO MUCH TIME FOR NO REASON especially since I typed all this on my phone
Okaye
that was stoopti
Oka
I see the world "as is", and I don't necessarily think that it "ought to be" anything. I can't PROVE that is ought it not to be something, but you can't prove that it ought to be something either. To do that requires religion or an ideal view of something, which again, everyone has a different perspective of. What is the ideal way to treat animals? As servants? As friends? As food? As gods? As tools?
There is nothing about "rationality" that requires measurement. How can you "measure" a logical proposition or argument like "p -> q; p; Q.E.D. q"? What units do you measure it in? What tools do you use to measure it? Rationality isn't about measurement at all.
I don't know what that is. Think of any mathematical equation you want. I measure it with mathematical units, and I compute it with a calculator or my mind, which calculates.
Yes, rationality itself does not require measurement, but morality is irrational to believe in because it must be germinated though feelings, which are irrational. It requires
we can use tools like logic and reasoning and argumentation to reach moral conclusions.
To build up to them yes, but that building is
founded on your feelings, which I cannot feel.
Originally posted by DietPiano
My argument encompasses everyone needing to use the same foundation and rules for morality in order for one to justly force moral pressure on another.
Storytime:
Morality requires
faith in
something. Not necessarily God, but some kind of vision. But I can't understand your vision, and you can't understand mine.
I think Malice was of the opinion that there was nothing he ought to put his faith in, because he saw no reason to have faith. I appear to be going in the direction of no faith as well.
However, unlike Malice, I see this not pessimistically and reason for one to kill thyself because there is no point (although Malice had many other major problems I'm not mentioning at the moment).
I see this as an utterly liberating thing, as I can make whatever experiences I want, think whatever I want, and be free of any chain-gang of the mind others would try to force on me.
If compassion is the root of morality, I believe compassion, again, is an intricately complex form of egoism. I cannot even prove or disprove morality, nor can you.
All I know is that I do not know.
I don't think humans can comprehend what THIS is. I think it's beyond our perceptive abilities to understand existence whatsoever.
But there is stuff and stuffness, and stuffness is more interesting than nothing, if nothing even exists. Again, I don't think we can even understand the concept of nothing.
But I'll go with it. I am at peace, because this is the way it is.
Way I see it, you can see yourself as a servant, or a God. How do you know you aren't God? Has a different God told you you aren't God? We might all be Gods. Working for infinite complexity&feelings, as we do cool shit.
Isn't that neat!?
Boy that 5 strip really fucked me up, family.