TrueBeluga t1_j4bmqop wrote
Reply to comment by EducatorBig6648 in Life can’t be reduced to a rulebook. But committing to certain moral principles can help us navigate life better. by IAI_Admin
In what way does it exist outside of the mind? Morality, good, and evil are concepts created by humans. If all minds were removed from the universe, where would morality exist?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4bparq wrote
>"In what way does it exist outside of the mind?"
In a nutshell; benevolence and malevolence exist objectively hence good and evil exist objectively hence morality (moral and immoral) exists objectively.
>"Morality, good, and evil are concepts created by humans."
The concept of the horse is not the same thing as the horse.
And arguably a dinosaur choosing to eat another dinosaur alive when it could kill it was strictly speaking evil.
>"If all minds were removed from the universe, where would morality exist?"
The same way it always exists; Rape would be immoral because it would be evil because it would be malevolent. That there is no longer anyone in existence to be malevolent or benevolent does not erase that from reality. Nor did organic life bring it into reality, it was always there.
Kind of like... hmm... "Organic life would grow because organic life would have genetics." Organic life actually existing is irrelevant.
TrueBeluga t1_j4byry7 wrote
>benevolence and malevolence exist objectively
Do they? What's your definition of benevolence and malevolence? In addition to that, your conclusion that because benevolence and malevolence exist objectively (which I have yet to see evidence for), that therefore morality exists objectively is logically unsound. Morality is normativity by definition, or in other words, morality is what you should do rather than what is. The existence of benevolence or malevolence has no effect on this. If you were to create a moral theory, you could say that being benevolent is good and being malevolent is bad, but this is in no way logically required, it is just subjective.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4c4s3h wrote
>"Do they?"
Yes.
>"What's your definition of benevolence and malevolence?"
The definition for the Sun used to involve "orbits the Earth" so I will say this instead:
You know what they are. Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy is not benevolence.
>"In addition to that, your conclusion that because benevolence and malevolence exist objectively (which I have yet to see evidence for), that therefore morality exists objectively is logically unsound."
I disagree. Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy would be me being malevolent to a fellow lifeform i.e. me being evil and immoral.
>"Morality is normativity by definition, or in other words, morality is what you should do rather than what is."
No, because "should" is a myth.
>"If you were to create a moral theory, you could say that being benevolent is good and being malevolent is bad"
You mean "morally good" and "morally bad"? Why would I bother with that? I already have this: Me cutting your arms off with a chainsaw because your screams of pain give me sadistic joy would be me being malevolent to a fellow lifeform i.e. me being evil and immoral.
Why would I involve it being "objectively morally bad" when "bad" immediately leans into subjective thought, "Objectively bad for what? The arms? The victim's feelings? The universe? Social coexistence?" In other words: Bad has to do with consequences (which leads into the idea of utilitarianism) or it has to do with (for lack of better phrasing) universal "laws" (which leads into the idea of deontology).
>"but this is in no way logically required, it is just subjective."
Nothing is ever "required", "requirement/need/necessity" is a myth. The drowning man does not "require" air to avoid becoming a drowned corpse, he desires to avoid it and can't avoid it without air consequentially he desires air. The "requiring" is just a fictional relationship in his imagination.
TrueBeluga t1_j4c6fo6 wrote
>Nothing is ever "required"
I wasn't using required in the manner you think. When someone says "logically required" they're talking about deductive logic, consider these premises: all frogs can jump, the animal in question is a frog, therefore the animal in question can jump. This is deductive logic (as opposed to inductive logic). Assuming the first two premises are true and accurate (I'm not saying they actually are, but lets say they are for the sake of the argument), then it is logically required that the animal in question can jump. That's what logically required means, it means that the conclusion put forth is consistent with deductive logic.
>No, because "should" is a myth.
Sure, I agree. But saying it's a myth is a bit of a weird way of saying it, its just subjective. What any one person should do, based on deductive or inductive logic, is based on an incomprehensible number of variables, and based on their own goals conscious and unconscious. But you are wrong, morality in philosophy is a normative study, aka the study of what you should do. If you disagree with that, then it'd be wise to find another word instead of morality as you are using it in such a way that most people educated in philosophy won't understand what you're trying to say.
>i.e. me being evil and immoral.
This is just a contingent or definitional truth (i.e. a truth that is only true because you define a word in such a way, aka it is definitionally true that causing harm is immoral if I define immorality as doing harm). I disagree that evil or immorality has anything to do with malevolence. If you think it does, that's fine, but you're definition of immorality is in no way logically required or objective.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4cltkm wrote
>"I wasn't using required in the manner you think. When someone says "logically required" they're talking about deductive logic, consider these premises: all frogs can jump, the animal in question is a frog, therefore the animal in question can jump. This is deductive logic (as opposed to inductive logic). Assuming the first two premises are true and accurate (I'm not saying they actually are, but lets say they are for the sake of the argument), then it is logically required that the animal in question can jump. That's what logically required means, it means that the conclusion put forth is consistent with deductive logic."
I already understood what you meant and I apologize for my rigid stance on certain things overriding diplomacy.
Someone elsewhere just suggested "logically entails" as a surrogate that wouldn't provoke my "logical dislike".
>"Sure, I agree. But saying it's a myth is a bit of a weird way of saying it, its just subjective."
No. It is neither subjective or objective, it is imaginary. It is a myth.
>"What any one person should do, based on deductive or inductive logic, is based on an incomprehensible number of variables, and based on their own goals conscious and unconscious."
False. There is nothing any person "should" do. Nothing in the universe "should" do anything differently than what it is doing nor "should" it be doing whatever it is doing.
>"But you are wrong, morality in philosophy is a normative study, aka the study of what you should do."
Then philosophy is doomed to never get to the truth as it does not involve actually pursuing it, it just goes chasing its own tail.
>"If you disagree with that, then it'd be wise to find another word instead of morality as you are using it in such a way that most people educated in philosophy won't understand what you're trying to say."
You're saying "most people educated in philosophy" are so stupid they can't anticipate a stranger's idea of morality may not conform to that of their philosophy teachers'.
>"This is just a contingent or definitional truth."
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
>"I disagree that evil or immorality has anything to do with malevolence."
Sure but how do you disagree? You can disagree with me saying the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa.
>"If you think it does, that's fine, but you're definition of immorality is in no way logically required or objective."
Kindly explain that to me. I am saying that the universe doesn't care about the U.S. President nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and sees it no different from Jack the Ripper butchering women in London or you killing a fly... however, the malevolence of the U.S. President nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the victimizing of the people) is tempered by the circumstantal elements of benevolence (ending WWII sooner) which leads to the debate of it being moral or immoral to drop those nukes.
Levels of benevolence and malevolence -> levels of good and evil -> How moral or immoral?
That's what I'm saying. What are you saying? That the universe has an opinion on what the U.S. President "should" have done?
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4fgolc wrote
>This is just a contingent or definitional truth (i.e. a truth that is only true because you define a word in such a way, aka it is definitionally true that causing harm is immoral if I define immorality as doing harm).
But causing harm and being malevolent are not the same thing. You can fail to cause harm while you were being malevolent. In fact some use the word malevolence for just the desire or inclination to do harm.
I am arguing morality is about good and evil. Arguably doing evil would be malevolence + causing (or actively trying to cause) harm and doing good would be its opposite, benevolence + preventing/undoing (or actively trying to prevent/undo) harm. Being immoral would be doing evil without a certain amount of doing good as "extenuating circumstances" and vice versa (i.e. a moral person is a person who tries to do as little evil as possible and if they cannot avoid doing evil they try to do good at the same time).
That you're saying "Well, that's only true if you define the word morality that way!" seems like semantics to me. I'm arguing that this was true before organic life came along and language even existed.
I can use made up words: Instead of morality we have rockapootity, instead of good and evil I have nicootan and baroom. It would still be the same thing: If lifeforms ever exist in this lifeless universe then a rockapootital person would be a person who tries to do as little baroom as possible and if they cannot avoid doing baroom they try to do nicootan at the same time. A society of lifeforms of exclusively doing baroom would quickly go under, a society of lifeforms of exclusively nicootan would thrive so a society trying to be the latter would organize standards to promote nicatoon and frown on baroom. The most rockapootital person in that society may be following those standards or deviating from them depending on how good those standards were made since those standards could be very poorly made.
EDIT: If the last part is unclear the most rockapootital person can say "These standards suck, they result in this baroom and this baroom." and the society can go "Oh, that person's right. We thought this was how to be the most rockapootital people we could be but clearly it's time to revise. You have done your society a very nicootan service."
TrueBeluga t1_j4httvk wrote
>But causing harm and being malevolent are not the same thing
My bad, I typed i.e. instead of e.g., I was just making an example.
>Arguably doing evil would be malevolence + causing (or actively trying to cause) harm
I don't agree, and I see no reason to agree with you. You can define evil in that way, but I see no reason why I would define evil in that way. On top of that, morality isn't even necessarily about good and evil. You can just as easily say it's about right and wrong, or good and bad. My main point is that you have failed to provide any conclusive proof to define morality in the way you want. This isn't semantic, because most philosophers and even just the general populace don't agree with your definition. Especially in philosophy, I haven't heard anyone advocate for a theory that says "morality is good and evil, which is benevolence and malevolence", and yet again, I see no reason to all of sudden agree with your definition of morality when you've provided no good reason for me to.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4ifanr wrote
>"My bad, I typed i.e. instead of e.g., I was just making an example."
Ah, I see.
>"I don't agree, and I see no reason to agree with you."
You mean you see no reason why you "should" or "must"? "Should" and "must" are myths. You can disagree with me about the Earth orbiting the Sun instead of the other way around but that is not participating in a philosophical conversation which I thought was what we were doing.
>"You can define evil in that way, but I see no reason why I would define evil in that way."
It's not really about defining. Definitions are just for language as, if I haven't said this already, the definition for the Sun used to include "orbits the Earth".
>"On top of that, morality isn't even necessarily about good and evil."
There is no such thing as "necessarily" since "necessity" is a myth. But to answer you; Wrong, that is what morality is. If you're malevolently doing harm without some benevolence to "balance it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person.
>"You can just as easily say it's about right and wrong, or good and bad."
No, you can't (and be correct, that is) and I just explained how that is not the case in my last post but I'll try again:
If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person.
This is Jack The Ripper butchering women out of sadistic serial killer joy.
It has nothing to do with right and wrong (right and wrong according to who or what?) or good and bad (good and bad for who or what?). Who or what decides if Jack the Ripper butchering women is right or wrong? Who or what decides if Jack the Ripper butchering women is a good thing or a bad thing?
The answer to the last two questions are: No one and nothing does. This is how morality and immorality have nothing to do with right and wrong or good and bad.
Let me do it again:
In the Judeo-Christian mythology, God said "Let there be light." and there was light, the first thing in the universe.
Who or what decides if God creating light (or anything else e.g. Lucifer or Adam or Eve or the apple) is right or wrong? Who or what decides if God creating light (or anything else) is a good thing or a bad thing?
Again the answer to those two questions are: No one and nothing does.
>"My main point is that you have failed to provide any conclusive proof to define morality in the way you want."
Again, definitions is about language. I'm talking about what's real and what's not. "Morally wrong" and "morally bad" do not exist.
>"This isn't semantic, because most philosophers and even just the general populace don't agree with your definition."
See my point about the Sun above.
>"Especially in philosophy, I haven't heard anyone advocate for a theory that says "morality is good and evil, which is benevolence and malevolence","
Why would I care? I'm talking to you, not them. I'm not talking to Plato or David Hume or your philosophy teacher or anybody else.
>"and yet again, I see no reason to all of sudden agree with your definition of morality"
I am not asking you to "suddenly agree" with anything I've said, we're having a conversation.
And to beat a dead horse, definitions are just about language, communication lifeform to lifeform. It doesn't change the facts e.g. that the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around.
>"when you've provided no good reason for me to."
I have not tried to provide a good reason for you to agree with my personal definition of morality like I'd for example try to convince you to start using the definition of "a few" as 2-4 things and the definition of "several" as 3-9 things.
What I've done is descibe what I have (with logic, as I understand the term) concluded morality to actually factually be. If you choose to simply believe (for your own reasons) that I have jumped to that conclusion, there is no "imperative" for you to do otherwise and there is no "should", you are free to simply ignore me like people ignored Galileo saying the Earth orbits the Sun.
If you (or anyone else, living or dead) believe/believed they can disprove my explanation I am happy to examine their logic just like you (or they) are free to examine mine.
TrueBeluga t1_j4ir2o1 wrote
>You mean you see no reason why you "should" or "must"?
No, I don't. When I say no reason, I mean no reason. Why are you assuming something that I didn't even say? Having a reason to believe something does not mean you should believe it, all it does is provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness. So, no, I'm not talking about should or must as you have decided to randomly assume.
>There is no such thing as "necessarily" since "necessity" is a myth
Yeah, that's why it isn't necessarily. I didn't say it was necessarily, I said it wasn't. What are you even talking about? Your whole response there wasn't even contrary to anything I had said.
>morality to actually factually be
How have you logically proven this at all? Morality is a word with a definition. You're just using your own definition, which is fine, but don't act like you have at all proven what morality is factually. This whole section, as I understand it, was meant to prove that morality is as you say it is:
"If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person"
The issue with this, however, is it isn't even an argument. It's just a conclusion. I think you misunderstand how deductive logic works. You have to provide premises that show what you're saying is right. I'm not sure how to put this more clearly, but you simply have not done that.
>The answer to the last two questions are: No one and nothing does. This is how morality and immorality have nothing to do with right and wrong or good and bad.
No, that doesn't actually logically follow. Just because "should", "right", and "wrong" do not actually exist does not mean that morality necessarily has to ascribe to something real. That's not a logically sound argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that would prove is that morality may not be talking about something real in the first place. In fact, one of the viable, actually logical conclusion from these premises is that morality is imaginary, as I have been arguing. Let me demonstrate this with deductive logic:
- Morality is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by philosophers to be about "should", "right", and "wrong" (premise)
- "Should", "right", and "wrong" are imaginary (premise)
- Therefore, morality as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)
This is logically sound. If you disagree, please respond in a similar manner, using a deductive argument that is organized in a similar manner (with numbered points, and labelling your premises and your conclusion) or else I'm just not going to respond. I sadly just don't have the time in the day or the patience to sift through looking for any actual deductive arguments.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4l2ffb wrote
>"No, I don't. When I say no reason, I mean no reason."
But I don't understand what you mean by bringing it up. If you had out of the blue said that you have no reason to survive, would you be trying to imply you no longer desire to survive or even that you desire the opposite, to die?
Or would you just be agreeing with me that organisms neither "should" or "must" survive (which would be absolutely redundant and be like out of the blue telling me you're human or that we're on reddit)?
Or would you be trying to imply that I have failed to provide you with a reason to survive rather than remain suicidal?
Because I have no interest in giving you a reason to do anything.
I have no interest in giving you a reason to agree with me that the Earth orbits the Sun, my interest would be in having a conversation about whether or not it does.
In other words, I am not here to give you a reason to agree with me or stop eating sugar or go kill yourself or to not go kill yourself. I have not been trying to do any of those things because I have no reason to do them. Can you give me a reason to do one of those things? How about I give you a gun to put to my head, would that change something?
Am I putting a gun to your head and demanding you agree with anything I say? No, I am simply having a conversation with you about a subject and that subject is "Does morality exist outside the mind?" I am arguing it does because you argued it doesn't, that's it. Anything beyond that, your agreement etc. that (in a nutshell) ain't none a' my beeezwax.
>"Why are you assuming something that I didn't even say?"
There was no assumption. In short: There was a question and then a 'in case'.
>"Having a reason to believe something does not mean you should believe it, all it does is provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness."
That's not quite how it works.
Me: The Stone Age lasted 3.4 million years.
You: I don't agree and I see no reason to do so. If I had such a reason it would provide proof that the Stone Age lasted 3.4 million years.
Me: The reason would? Isn't that kind of backwards? Cart before the horse? Isn't it that good enough proof of X being true MAY BE reason alone for you to agree that X is true?
EDIT: Note that I stuck with the word "agree" despite your just switching to the word "believe".
>"So, no, I'm not talking about should or must as you have decided to randomly assume."
See above.
>"Yeah, that's why it isn't necessarily. I didn't say it was necessarily, I said it wasn't. What are you even talking about? Your whole response there wasn't even contrary to anything I had said."
That's not quite true although of course I get the gist. You don't seem to get the gist of what I'm saying; that you're still using the term "necessarily" in our conversation as if I'm to still to conform to what it implies.
>"How have you logically proven this at all?"
Read on.
>"Morality is a word with a definition."
You're just going to willfully ignore what I've said about definitions, huh?
>"You're just using your own definition, which is fine, but don't act like you have at all proven what morality is factually."
Read on.
>"This whole section, as I understand it, was meant to prove that morality is as you say it is: "If you're malevolently doing harm (evil) without some benevolent prevention/undoing harm (good) to "cancel it" you're not being a moral person, you're being an immoral person""
Yes.
>"The issue with this, however, is it isn't even an argument. It's just a conclusion. I think you misunderstand how deductive logic works. You have to provide premises that show what you're saying is right. I'm not sure how to put this more clearly, but you simply have not done that."
Understood but read on.
>"No, that doesn't actually logically follow. Just because "should", "right", and "wrong" do not actually exist does not mean that morality necessarily has to ascribe to something real."
That was not what I was saying there. I was eliminating morality being about "should" and "right/wrong".
>"That's not a logically sound argument, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. All that would prove is that morality may not be talking about something real in the first place."
Exactly.
>"In fact, one of the viable, actually logical conclusion from these premises is that morality is imaginary, as I have been arguing. Let me demonstrate this with deductive logic: 1. Morality is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by philosophers to be about "should", "right", and "wrong" (premise)
>2. "Should", "right", and "wrong" are imaginary (premise)
>3. Therefore, morality as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)"
Yes, except right and wrong are not imaginary e.g. there's accurate and inaccurate just to give one example, so the second premise does not hold without rephrasing.
>"This is logically sound."
Except for the problem with the second premise.
>"If you disagree, please respond in a similar manner, using a deductive argument that is organized in a similar manner (with numbered points, and labelling your premises and your conclusion) or else I'm just not going to respond."
Please hold... (grumbles: Man, I'm gonna type this whole thing out in a very inefficient way, I just know it!)
TrueBeluga t1_j4mqhck wrote
>Except for the problem with the second premise.
For someone who complains about me talking about semantics, you sure do like to complain about semantics a whole lot. I can rephrase that easily to fix it. Here is the fixed second premise, ""Should", "moral right," and "moral wrong" are imaginary (premise)" (moral right and moral wrong, in this case, are defined as the usage of right and wrong associated not with accuracy or direction, but the definitions used in moral philosophy).
>You're just going to willfully ignore what I've said about definitions, huh?
Because what you've said about definitions is incoherent and unsupported. I literally had no idea how to respond to it because when you talked about definitions, you didn't make an actual logical argument. I cannot critique an argument that has not been made.
>No, I am simply having a conversation
Yes, and in this specific conversation we are having an arguments. Arguments have reasons. When I say I have no reason, I mean you have provided no reasons, and thus your argument is logically unsound. That is what that means. Stop with this silly "should is a myth" semantics. I'm not talking about that right now, so stop arguing with me about random stuff I haven't even brought up.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4odm5m wrote
>"For someone who complains about me talking about semantics, you sure do like to complain about semantics a whole lot."
From my side it's not really a question of semantics since semantics concerns the meaning of the words.
>"I can rephrase that easily to fix it. Here is the fixed second premise, ""Should", "moral right," and "moral wrong" are imaginary (premise)" (moral right and moral wrong, in this case, are defined as the usage of right and wrong associated not with accuracy or direction, but the definitions used in moral philosophy)."
You haven't fixed it, you've done this:
-
Star Wars is generally considered by definition (in available dictionaries), by the general populace, and by pop culture experts to be about "aliens", "robots", and "an omnipresent psychic force" (premise)
-
"Aliens", "R2-D2" and "The Force" are imaginary (premise) (R2-D2 and The Force, in this case, are defined as the usage of robots and omnipresent psychic force associated not with minesweepers or parapsychology, but the definitions used in pop culture).
-
Therefore, Star Wars as it is defined and understood (by the general populace) is about imaginary things (conclusion)"
It works in general because it's Star Wars but it doesn't hold up when it's scifi in general and you have advanced technology in the first premise and rayguns and perpetual motion machines in the second premise so you can conclude scifi is about nothing real (implying scifi itself isn't real).
>"Because what you've said about definitions is incoherent and unsupported. I literally had no idea how to respond to it because when you talked about definitions, you didn't make an actual logical argument. I cannot critique an argument that has not been made."
You couldn't grasp the obvious implication of these fifteen words? The definition for the Sun and the stars used to include "They orbit the Earth."
>"Yes, and in this specific conversation we are having an arguments. Arguments have reasons. When I say I have no reason, I mean you have provided no reasons, and thus your argument is logically unsound."
Again, you're making that same dance.
I could say "The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun hence the Moon orbits the Sun." and you could go "I don't agree and I see no reason to agree with you." or "I have no reason to believe that, if I did it would provide proof in favour of its reality or its factualness or accurateness." without even reading my argument through.
Let me put it this way: I don't care about your agreeing with what orbits what or you believing what orbits what. I don't mind you questioning my logic when I say "X orbits Y." but what you're doing is not understanding (or perhaps pretending to not understand) that definitions come out of books written by us humans for the sake of talking about things, the universe did not write those books for us humans describing its inner workings for us to eventually decipher.
In other words, imagine if Galileo had said "The books say the Sun orbits the Earth so no reason to look in that telescope for myself or look at why the math doesn't add up, smarter people than me would have done better in the past and if they couldn't it will take the smart people of the distant future to solve it."?
>"Stop with this silly "should is a myth" semantics."
It's not semantics. Semantics is about meaning e.g. "What do we mean by the word dog?", not reality/fiction e.g. "Are dogs fictional?" is not a question about semantics. "Should" is a fiction.
>"I'm not talking about that right now, so stop arguing with me about random stuff I haven't even brought up."
It's not random. You're the one bringing those myths up e.g. that I "have to" do X in order to fulfill Y of making a logical argument which is ironic since "imperatives" are not logical. :-)
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4l3ge8 wrote
- People exist (premise)
- People can intentionally harm eachother (premise)
- Therefore, intentional harming of others exists (conclusion)
​
- People exist (premise)
- People can intentionally protect eachother (premise)
- Therefore, intentional protection of others exists (conclusion)
​
-
Intentional protection of others exists (premise)
-
Benevolence (behaviour exhibiting a kind/charitable/altruistic attitude, good will, wishing others well) exists (premise)
-
Benevolently protecting others is good (opposite of evil) (premise)
-
Therefore, good (opposite of evil) exists (conclusion)
​
-
Intentional harming of others exists (premise)
-
Malevolence (behaviour exhibiting a hostile/spiteful attitude, ill will, wishing ill on others) exists (premise)
-
Malevolently harming of others is evil (premise)
-
Therefore, evil exists (conclusion)
​
-
A person can recognize good (premise)
-
A person can recognize evil (premise)
-
A person can recognize the distinction between good and evil (premise)
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between good and evil and choosing to be good (or even try to) is that person's morality (premise)
-
Therefore, morality (personal morality) exists (conclusion)
​
-
A person can recognize good (premise)
-
A person can recognize evil (premise)
-
A person can recognize the distinction between good and evil (premise)
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between good and evil and choosing to be evil (or even try to) is that person's immorality (premise)
-
Therefore, immorality (personal immorality) exists (conclusion)
​
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will be able to harm eachother in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, benevolence and malevolence will exist in the future (premise)
-
Therefore, even if no people existed in the past or present, good and evil will exist in the future (conclusion)
​
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, good and evil will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will be able to recognize the distinction between good and evil and choose to be one or the other (or even try to) (premise)
-
Therefore, even if no people exist in the past or present, personal morality and personal immorality will exist in the future (conclusion)
​
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between good and evil and choosing to be good (or even try to) is that person's morality (personal morality) (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, good and evil will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the present, there is nothing different about the present that would prevent them from being good or being evil as they will in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the present, there is nothing different about the present that would prevent their recognition of the distinction between good and evil and choosing to be good (or even try to) (premise)
-
Therefore, morality (abstract morality) exists in all past, present and future of this universe whether people (and their personal morality) exist or not (conclusion)
​
-
An abstract thing is not bound in time or to conditions* (premise)
-
People can exist at some point in time (premise)
-
Good and evil can exist because people can exist (premise)
-
Personal morality can exist because good and evil can exist (premise)
-
Abstract morality exists because personal morality can exist (premise)
-
Therefore, abstract morality exists across all time (and arguably even beyond) (conclusion)
In a nutshell, the abstract thing of (even potential) entities distinguishing and choosing cooperation over hostility and vice versa** exists across all time (and arguably even beyond). That abstract thing is what I personally refer to as morality and the reason I so confidently claim morality exists outside the mind.
People prefer to fumble around believing that morality is "how you should behave and how you should not behave" or something to do with winning Zeus's or Odin's approval or whatever, that ain't none a' my beeezwax.
-
* E.g. the abstract things distance, danger, clue, pattern and choice existed before there were any non-abstract things to have distance to one another, be in danger, have patterns, be investigative or make choices just as they will still exist after those non-abstract things cease to exist. Since they will still exist even if time and space cease and (potentially) non-abstract things might exist again to "embody" them.
In other words, the abstract thing lifeform exists independent of this universe or any other, it exists independent of all that just by not being a myth, just by not being Zeus throwing lightning bolts since he is not an abstract thing but a fiction, a broken mirror magically causing seven years bad luck is not an abstract thing but a fiction and "should" is not an an abstract thing but a fiction.
Which I already tried to explain in my second comment to you:
"The same way it always exists; Rape would be immoral because it would be evil because it would be malevolent. That there is no longer anyone in existence to be malevolent or benevolent does not erase that from reality. Nor did organic life bring it into reality, it was always there.
Kind of like... hmm... "Organic life would grow because organic life would have genetics." Organic life actually existing is irrelevant."
** To which I'm sure some would draw parallells to game theory.
TrueBeluga t1_j4mpczz wrote
Ok, I'll just point out my issues with the premises and the conclusions you provided:
>Benevolently protecting others is good (opposite of evil) (premise)
Leap of logic. You need to prove that "benevolence is good" or, "benevolently protecting others is good". Benevolence's definition does not equal good's definition, and so to prove that benevolent action is good (in this case, benevolent protection), you need to provide other premises to prove that. Because you are implementing a logic chain (as is common in arguments), the fact that this premise is logically unsound means that your entire argument (after this premise) is unsound. So, if you want to correct your argument, you need to fix this issue first, but even though this damns your argument already I will provide some more criticisms below.
>Malevolently harming of others is evil (premise)
Same issue with above. This is unsupported. Just because harming exists, and malevolence exists, does not mean malevolent harm is evil. This needs to be proven with further evidence, reasons, or premises or else it also causes your argument to be unsound and illogical.
>A person can recognize good (premise)
A person can recognize evil (premise)
A person can recognize the distinction between good and evil (premise)
I do not accept these premises. Different cultures all around the world recognize the existence of evil and good. However, what they call evil, and what they call good, is drastically different. In many cases, say some ancient pagan cultures (lets just say the Asatru norse, in this case) would say that malevolent harm can be good (and not evil) if its done in the service of a God, or in an act of revenge. Even Christian witch hunts, which are malevolent cause of harm, would not be recognized as evil, and this witch hunts have continued in Africa into modern times. If we are using your definitions of good and evil, then it is actually completely incorrect to say that people can recognize good and evil. Some can, but if you were to pick a random person in history or present, it would be quite likely that they couldn't "recognize good/evil" in many, many cases. Thus, these premises are false.
>Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will exist in the future (premise)
Not necessarily. The science is still evolving, but if heat death were to happen ( a real possibility), then at some point nothing would be able to live as entropy would have reached a maximal state of continuous and equal energy levels throughout the entire universe and thus reactions (chemical, physical, biological) could not occur. You have to add the assumption: "assuming heat death, or any other end-of-universe scenario will not occur, and that the universe will remain persistent and hospital for some kind of life for all time", which an assumption which is ungrounded in current science and thus I do not accept.
Each one of these criticisms of your argument are, so to speak, damning. That means that if you want your argument to be logical or sound, you must address and fix each one.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4nqszi wrote
>"Leap of logic."
No, it seems you're confusing logic with what people have written in dictionaries. To which I keep saying this: Something used to be written in dictionaries about the Sun and the stars was "They orbit the Earth."
>"You need to prove"
Objection. I never "need" to do anything, I could have died in the womb or all organic life could have died out before there were even dinosaurs. "Needing/need/necessity" is a myth.
>"that "benevolence is good" or, "benevolently protecting others is good". Benevolence's definition does not equal good's definition, and so to prove that benevolent action is good (in this case, benevolent protection), you need to provide other premises to prove that. Because you are implementing a logic chain (as is common in arguments), the fact that this premise is logically unsound means that your entire argument (after this premise) is unsound. So, if you want to correct your argument, you need to fix this issue first, but even though this damns your argument already I will provide some more criticisms below."
All of this is nothing I didn't already know. Except the last part about fixing this issue, I do not at this point recognize that there is an issue to fix.
Logically prove to me (with numbers, premises and conclusions) that (just pulling an example out of a hat here) a firefighter choosing to sacrifice their life to save a complete stranger from a burning building is not being good (i.e. opposite of being evil).
Or, if you prefer, logically prove to me that a man ("legally" sane i.e. not hallucinating that he's saving the world from alien invasion through this) chaining a complete stranger up in a building he's just lit on fire so the stranger will burn to death is not being evil.
Because if you can't do either, then what does my "logical leap" (as you call it, incorrectly if you ask me) conflict with? Other people's inconclusive philosophical theories? Other people's unproven "personal definition" of what good and evil are, i.e. the Pope has one based on religious dogma?
Or perhaps you already have the proof as perhaps you have a dictionary that can reveal unto us the "Definitive Definition Of What Good And Evil Are" like Deep Thought was asked to reveal The Ultimate Answer and The Ultimate Question in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy?
>"Same issue with above. This is unsupported. Just because harming exists, and malevolence exists, does not mean malevolent harm is evil. This needs to be proven with further evidence, reasons, or premises or else it also causes your argument to be unsound and illogical."
Same issue as above. I do not at this point recognize that it is unsupported.
If I could just stomp babies to death in front of their weeping mothers because I have a gun and they don't and no one on the planet called this "evil"... because "Well, you know, our academics have never figured out what this thing that the word evil would stand for would actually be. In ancient Greece some scholars argued that it refers to whatever Zeus and the pantheon frowned upon while others argued that Zeus and the pantheon would frown upon it because it would be a flaw in an otherwise perfect universe. And some argue that it refers to something devoid of moral value as blablabla.", well... that is absurd.
That is the way I understand this (and I may be wrong here), that if you can't logically prove the "stranger in a burning building" thing to be morally neutral then the above is exactly what you're doing, you're holding up philosophy papers and dictionary excerpts written by others and proclaiming that no one simply recognized a basic 'lack of neutrality' and named it "good and evil", no, there "must" be this grand all-encompassing solution so that discovering it will ALSO make all the philosophical papers and dictionaries stop conflicting on the subject. Again, the "Definitive Definition Of What Good And Evil Are"... like Deep Thought was asked to reveal The Ultimate Answer and The Ultimate Question.
That would seem to me philosophers have their concepts of "good and evil" on such a tall pedestal that philosophy itself is literally parody of seeking the truth.
>"I do not accept these premises. Different cultures all around the world recognize the existence of evil and good."
Cultures are irrelevant.
>"However, what they call evil, and what they call good, is drastically different."
Which is one of the larger parts of how cultures are irrelevant. I don't care what the Pope calls good or evil anymore than what some stoned medicine man in the deepest part of anywhere calls good or evil since it's irrelevant. Say they both say homosexuality is evil, I don't give a flying *** since homosexuality is not malevolent causing of harm hence I don't consider gays and lesbians evil or immoral. A rapist or pedophile, on the other hand... yeah, I don't care what the Pope or the medicine man or any human of any culture you can bring to the table has to say about that either.
>"In many cases, say some ancient pagan cultures (lets just say the Asatru norse, in this case) would say that malevolent harm can be good (and not evil) if its done in the service of a God, or in an act of revenge."
Exactly, which is how they're wrong. That is not how morality works. Being in the service of a fictional "deity" or revenge is not benevolent protection of others hence it would not (even partially) cancel out the malevolent harm.
>"Even Christian witch hunts, which are malevolent cause of harm, would not be recognized as evil, and this witch hunts have continued in Africa into modern times. If we are using your definitions of good and evil, then it is actually completely incorrect to say that people can recognize good and evil."
You're completely misreading (or intentionally twisting) the point: Yes, they could recognize that burning a person alive at the stake would normally be evil, they just didn't believe it was in this case since they believed God made it not be evil in this case. If the "witches" were doing the burning of the Christians, you think the neighboring Christians would shrug and go "Oh well, God's will be done. Hope they don't come for me tomorrow. Time to milk the cows."? I do findeth that unlikely.
>"Not necessarily."
You're using that word again. Also, you're misunderstanding the point. Wind the clock back to before we exist and we will exist in the future. Since I said "in the past or present". Which does not include "in our future" (heat death etc).
TrueBeluga t1_j4qcrkt wrote
Let me attempt to explain something.
Morality is a word, yes? Words have meaning. I don't mean to get into the philosophy of language, but lets saying the meaning of words is based on common language use and the definitions within dictionaries, as is commonly accepted (if you disagree, read into theories of meanings and the philosophy of language to develop your own theory of meaning). For example, the meaning of literally used to mean "not figuratively", but because of common language use, it cannot be argued that it does not mean "figuratively" as well. The meaning of words is a complex, dynamic thing. This dynamic complexity is shared with the meaning of morality, as morality is a word like any other.
I would concede to you that some concept akin to morality, that I will call from now on as EB-morality (for EducatorBig), could be something that is not imaginary and exists irrespective of the mind. However, the issue is, EB-morality is not synonymous with morality as used in English. That's my main problem with your point. You can argue that morality is malevolence and benevolence all you want, but to do so you would be logically required (and by logically required I mean that if you were not to, you would be being illogical) establish a new philosophy of language and meaning.
I'm not sure how to explain this in clearer terms. The concept you are professing could fit under the definition of morality and common language understanding of morality, but it is not the definition or common language understanding of morality. Because your definition concerns moral right and moral wrong, evil or good, it does fit as a "theory of morality", or an ethical theory. However, it cannot somehow usurp its definition. Just like how no amount of logical argument could change the definition of "being", or really any other word, because the meaning of words has never been tied to these types of logical arguments. You can say the current definition of morality is incorrect, but on what basis? The basis that it is illogical is irrelevant (which I don't even agree with), because meanings of words do not have to follow logic.
To attempt to drive this point home, let me examine this quote by you:
>Something used to be written in dictionaries about the Sun and the stars was "They orbit the Earth."
This may be true, however the issue is not that the definition is wrong. The definition was never wrong, not even then, because when people said "the sun", what they were referring to was an object that orbited the Earth (footnote below). The issue isn't that the definition was wrong, but that the defined object simply did not exist. Definitions (in a language sense) can never really be "wrong", so to speak. It's simply the word as defined may not exist. Just like the definition of unicorn, as defined as "a horse-like animal with a single horn", is not incorrect, but the defined object does not factually exist in the real (real as defined in realism, as mind-independent) world.
I'm not going to continue to argue this further, because sadly I have a lot of university work to complete, but good talking to you.
​
Footnote: They would have been wrong if they were to point at the sun in the sky and say, "that glowing object orbits the earth", but not if they were to say, "the sun orbits the earth" if the sun were defined as "the glowing sphere which orbits the earth" as these are definitionally and logically consistent statements. If they defined the sun as, "the glowing sphere in the sky" but said nothing about its orbit, then in this case it would be incorrect to say "the sun orbits the earth" as this is no longer definitionally consistent and also refers to an object that can be said to exist. I know this is sort of dense philosophy of language, but sadly I cannot explain a few hundred years of modern philosophy in a reddit thread lol.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4rmb0m wrote
>"Morality is a word, yes? Words have meaning."
Everything has meaning.
>"I don't mean to get into the philosophy of language, but lets saying the meaning of words is based on common language use and the definitions within dictionaries, as is commonly accepted (if you disagree, read into theories of meanings and the philosophy of language to develop your own theory of meaning)."
Language is the communication of concepts e.g. a deer alerting its kin to danger with its tail communicating the concept of danger to its kin and they all flee.
Dictionaries are just a tool we humans use to attempt to keep track of the most common agreed upon meanings because we communicate a lot. What's that old black-and-white movie where the professor spent like a decade slaving away on the biggest encyclopedia yet then is utterly thrown by modern slang ("Corny?"), realizes the book would be half obsolete and basically employs a woman to help him and sparks fly? Eh, whatever.
>"For example, the meaning of literally used to mean "not figuratively", but because of common language use, it cannot be argued that it does not mean "figuratively" as well. The meaning of words is a complex, dynamic thing. This dynamic complexity is shared with the meaning of morality, as morality is a word like any other."
I understand what you're saying but all of this was known to me. To use your phrasing, you have no reason to tell me that when a number of people say the word morality some or all of them might mean different things by it.
>"I would concede to you that some concept akin to morality, that I will call from now on as EB-morality (for EducatorBig), could be something that is not imaginary and exists irrespective of the mind."
ALL concepts are non-imaginary and exist irrespective of the mind. The concept of plastic toothbrush cannot be destroyed once it exists. You can destroy the entire universe, even time and space on top of that, and the concept of plastic toothbrush would just continue to exist as it has since it began to exist, in the conceptual realm.
I was not talking about a concept existing, I was talking about the actual nature of morality. I.e. morality existing in that if humans did not evolve on Earth but instead a Martian people evolved on Mars then rape would be immoral there too for the exact same reasons as they are on Earth provided that rape would involve malevolence and harm (as those are the reasons).
>"However, the issue is, EB-morality is not synonymous with morality as used in English."
Sure, if you say so. But English dictates how the universe works? Dictates the true nature of morality? I think not.
>"That's my main problem with your point. You can argue that morality is malevolence and benevolence all you want, but to do so you would be logically required (and by logically required I mean that if you were not to, you would be being illogical) establish a new philosophy of language and meaning."
No. Language is the communication of concepts and meaning is... eh, you'll just quote "the official definitions from books that are official because they are in books" at me.
Also, I never argued that morality was benevolence and malevolence, that is over-simplying my argument bordering on strawman argument.
>"I'm not sure how to explain this in clearer terms. The concept you are professing could fit under the definition of morality and common language understanding of morality, but it is not the definition or common language understanding of morality. Because your definition concerns moral right and moral wrong, evil or good, it does fit as a "theory of morality", or an ethical theory."
My "concept" or "definition" (which is what you call it while I would hesitate to label it either of those things) of it does NOT concern "moral right" and "moral wrong", since (as I've said many times now) those are myths, except in the sense that it deliberately distances itself from them.
What I'm "professing" is how I have personally concluded the true nature of morality to be. If you want to call that my "theory of morality", fine, but it is not an all-new concept that whole-sale replaces anything, in a sense it just shaves off the myths, like "People should be moral." and "People should be immoral." having any connection with reality.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4rmhcw wrote
>"However, it cannot somehow usurp its definition."
It is not intended to "usurp" its definition. The word "gods" (in any language, really) did not have its hard drive of meanings written by Judeo-Christian etc. religions coming in with monotheism and omnipotence and existing outside of time etc. It didn't instantly erase Ragnarok or Zeus and Cronus slaying Ouranos and then getting slain by his sons.
>"Just like how no amount of logical argument could change the definition of "being", or really any other word, because the meaning of words has never been tied to these types of logical arguments."
I have not argued otherwise. I obviously am already aware that the word 'morality' means different things to different people and that it is never tied to logical arguments like this since if either of those we would not be having this conversation, would we? We wouldn't even be able to have this conversation since it would be an impossibility for us since what you've just described would literally prevent us from having it, yes?
>"You can say the current definition of morality is incorrect, but on what basis? The basis that it is illogical is irrelevant (which I don't even agree with), because meanings of words do not have to follow logic."
I am not arguing that the meanings of words "have to" follow logic or anything else. And I do not mean that just because "imperatives" are a myth.
>"This may be true, however the issue is not that the definition is wrong. The definition was never wrong, not even then, because when people said "the sun", what they were referring to was an object that orbited the Earth (footnote below). The issue isn't that the definition was wrong, but that the defined object simply did not exist. Definitions (in a language sense) can never really be "wrong", so to speak. It's simply the word as defined may not exist."
Which is exactly the reason why you have not seen me say "The definition for morality in your dictionaries is wrong!" Instead what you have seen me say is (in a nutshell) "All our many lofty and conflicting ideas about morality being about right and wrong and should and moral values etc. are mistaken. Morality is, at its core at least, simpler than you might think."
>"Just like the definition of unicorn, as defined as "a horse-like animal with a single horn", is not incorrect, but the defined object does not factually exist in the real (real as defined in realism, as mind-independent) world."
Actually you're wrong there. Google "Elasmotherium sibericum" for the reason I nowadays use "pegasus" instead of "unicorn" in my argument about myth/fiction. Except for when I do use it but specify "magical unicorn" or, if I'm in the mood, "time traveling unicorn with cybernetic wings". :-)
>"Footnote: They would have been wrong if they were to point at the sun in the sky and say, "that glowing object orbits the earth","
That is exactly what they did. They pointed at the sky and said "That glowing object and that pale object and those tiny dots of light are the Sun, the Moon and the stars and they all orbit the Earth." Case closed, you have no case. Their definition was factually wrong. Nice tr... actually, no, terrible try.
I understand your preference that the definition "Zeus is king of the gods and rules from Mount Olympus and throws all the lightning on Earth." be untouchable by logic but reality is that the mountain in question exists and Zeus ain't there and as we learned more about lightning it seemed more and more far-fetched that he was involved so eventually we added "Oh yeah, Zeus is also a myth."
That is what would happen to all those old conflicting ideas about the nature of morality, they would be seen for what they truly are, factually incorrect since they involved myths. Hypotheses and musings really.
Good talking to you too.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j4nuzla wrote
I got bored...
- People exist (premise)
- People can intentionally harm eachother (premise)
- Therefore, intentional harming of others exists (conclusion)
​
- People exist (premise)
- People can intentionally protect eachother (premise)
- Therefore, intentional protection of others exists (conclusion)
​
-
Intentional protection of others exists (premise)
-
Benevolence (behaviour exhibiting a kind/charitable/altruistic attitude, good will, wishing others well) exists (premise)
-
Benevolently protecting others is heroism (premise)
-
Therefore, heroism exists (conclusion)
​
-
Intentional harming of others exists (premise)
-
Malevolence (behaviour exhibiting a hostile/spiteful attitude, ill will, wishing ill on others) exists (premise)
-
Malevolently harming of others is villainy (premise)
-
Therefore, villainy exists (conclusion)
​
-
A person can recognize heroism (premise)
-
A person can recognize villainy (premise)
-
A person can recognize the distinction between heroism and villainy (premise)
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between heroism and villainy and choosing to be heroic (or even try to) is that person's morality (premise)
-
Therefore, morality (personal morality) exists (conclusion)
​
-
A person can recognize heroism (premise)
-
A person can recognize villainy (premise)
-
A person can recognize the distinction between heroism and villainy (premise)
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between heroism and villainy and choosing to be villainous (or even try to) is that person's immorality (premise)
-
Therefore, immorality (personal immorality) exists (conclusion)
​
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will be able to harm eachother in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, benevolence and malevolence will exist in the future (premise)
-
Therefore, even if no people existed in the past or present, heroism and villainy will exist in the future (conclusion)
​
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, heroism and villainy will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, people will be able to recognize the distinction between heroism and villainy and choose to be one or the other (or even try to) (premise)
-
Therefore, even if no people exist in the past or present, personal morality and personal immorality will exist in the future (conclusion)
​
-
A person's recognition of the distinction between heroism and villainy and choosing to be heroic (or even try to) is that person's morality (personal morality) (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the past or present, heroism and villainy will exist in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the present, there is nothing different about the present that would prevent them from being heroic or being villainous as they will in the future (premise)
-
Even if no people exist in the present, there is nothing different about the present that would prevent their recognition of the distinction between heroism and villainy and choosing to be heroic (or even try to) (premise)
-
Therefore, morality (abstract morality) exists in all past, present and future of this universe whether people (and their personal morality) exist or not (conclusion)
​
-
An abstract thing is not bound in time or to conditions* (premise)
-
People can exist at some point in time (premise)
-
Heroism and villainy can exist because people can exist (premise)
-
Personal morality can exist because heroism and villany can exist (premise)
-
Abstract morality exists because personal morality can exist (premise)
-
Therefore, abstract morality exists across all time (and arguably even beyond) (conclusion)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments