Foundations of objective ethics

God, the FSM, and everything else.
yaromil
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Foundations of objective ethics

Postby yaromil » Mon May 01, 2017 4:56 pm

Here are the main theses of the theory of objective ethics.

1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development. Determinism is repeatability, regularity, certainty. It feels like a necessity, inevitability, compulsion, violence.

2) Freedom is fundamentally unknowable; the question of the existence of freedom is insolvable. Determinism is learned by observations and reflections. Determinism predetermines the future but freedom makes the future unpredictable and unknowable by denying determinism.

3) Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil. Freedom begets all other values. The duty of man, the purpose and meaning of human existence is to overcome determinism and to make the world freer. Cognition is part of this process. Knowledge entails responsibility; the criterion of truth is movement to freedom.

4) The man is one who follows his moral duty, who is striving to freedom. The unwillingness or inability of a sentient being to be a man brings it down to the level of animals. The animal follows the laws of the universe, submits to forces without trying to overcome them.

5) There is no absolute moral law; ethical norms are derived from the general contract. The basis of the consent is rejection of all forms of violence. The requirements of ethics cover conclusion of the contract (honesty, openness, objectivity) and compliance with it (fidelity to given word, adherence to rules, responsibility for violation).

6) Ethical norms are formal; they are constantly improving; the old are replaced by new, more free and fair - this is the essence of moral progress. The meaning of the norms is to stimulate creative and constructive activities by limiting violence. The ethics treats people as abstractions; all private is ignored.

7) Personal relations are governed by a sacrificial morality (emotions, love, care, etc.), and catastrophic situations by a heroic morality. Both types of morality are informal, limited in space and time, and require a clear separation from the public space (non-personal relations) governed by the ethics.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gord » Tue May 02, 2017 9:59 am

This just seems to be an attempt to somehow redefine the term "freedom" to make it seem like something that will only be possessed by the ethical stance you yourself favour. In other words, if I say I don't I don't believe in free will, then I fall into your "Evil" category. Or if I don't think it's my duty to strive to your definition of "freedom", then I am not moral.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2949
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue May 02, 2017 10:57 am

yaromil wrote:
1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development. Determinism is repeatability, regularity, certainty. It feels like a necessity, inevitability, compulsion, violence.


Sorry, but this is quite a bit of rubbish.

of course the evolution of the universe and life is fully deterministic, as is all human interaction. Determinism doesn't necessitate repeatability, since it is next to impossible to fully recreate initial conditions.
The question to what degree we have Free Will is highly contentious, but there is no reason to believe that it violates determinism, i.e. that, all things being equal, people would have a choice of doing things differently than they do.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

yaromil
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby yaromil » Tue May 02, 2017 4:32 pm

Gord wrote:This just seems to be an attempt to somehow redefine the term "freedom" to make it seem like something that will only be possessed by the ethical stance you yourself favour. In other words, if I say I don't I don't believe in free will, then I fall into your "Evil" category. Or if I don't think it's my duty to strive to your definition of "freedom", then I am not moral.


It may seem at first but if we look a little deeper it will make a lot of sense. First, we have to accept that we cannot understand (or define) freedom. Freedom is paradoxical. It cannot exist and it cannot not exist. To exist means to repeat itself but freedom never repeats itself. Freedom is unpredictable. Second, you may not believe in free will but it doesnt change the fact that you are NOT deterministic (in any sense) automat. If you are capable to produce something new (ie to be unpredictable) you are free so some degree (BTW, otherwise any discussions are meaningless).

All ethical stuff is just the consequences.

ElectricMonk wrote:of course the evolution of the universe and life is fully deterministic, as is all human interaction. Determinism doesn't necessitate repeatability, since it is next to impossible to fully recreate initial conditions.
The question to what degree we have Free Will is highly contentious, but there is no reason to believe that it violates determinism, i.e. that, all things being equal, people would have a choice of doing things differently than they do.


You missed the most important thing. Of course people as a rule repeat their actions, just like the rest of things in the universe. Freedom shows itself only when something NEW is created. Like art for instance. There is no law to create art and it will never be. The same appears in evolution. Something new, like life, is certainly cannot be deterministically produced from previouse conditions. We should not confuse unrepeatability with random variations. Repetitions are always differ from one another, however we are able to see them and to learn natural laws from them. The definition of the new is 'it has not existed before', the definition of the natural law is 'it repeat itself'.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2949
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue May 02, 2017 5:35 pm

You are talking about Emergence, not freedom: new things are created all the time by deterministic processes - or do you consider the first eucaryotic cell to be the result of an act of freedom by its precursors?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

yaromil
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby yaromil » Tue May 02, 2017 6:15 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:You are talking about Emergence, not freedom: new things are created all the time by deterministic processes - or do you consider the first eucaryotic cell to be the result of an act of freedom by its precursors?


We have to clearly separate the "emergence" by deterministic processes and a real "creation" of something new by freedom. Yes, the "first" eucaryotic cell is the result of an act of freedom because it could not be created by the process which never existed. Please note, however, that after the cell was created, the new process has also appeared and from now on it will repeat itself indefinitely. The difference between deterministic and non-deterministic creation is the latter is completely unpredictable. That is why we still do not know the "laws" of evolution (and we actualy will never know them).

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2949
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Tue May 02, 2017 6:46 pm

Sorry, but no:
Just because something can't be predicted doesn't mean it's not deterministic.
Freedom doesn't mean creativity, it means the ability to choose different actions under identical conditions. But that is impossible.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10303
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue May 02, 2017 7:08 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Sorry, but no:
Just because something can't be predicted doesn't mean it's not deterministic.
Freedom doesn't mean creativity, it means the ability to choose different actions under identical conditions. But that is impossible.


The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment is deterministic, but different results are obtained from identical conditions, albeit in a predictable probability distribution.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gord » Wed May 03, 2017 12:40 am

yaromil wrote:First, we have to accept that we cannot understand (or define) freedom.

Wait wait wait wait wait. Yes, we can. You just want to redefine it as neither understandable nor definable.

Here, see for yourself, people who really like words have been working to nail down a more and more stringent meaning of this one for a long time:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/freedom
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=freedom
http://etymologynow.blogspot.ca/2011/09 ... -free.html
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

yaromil
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby yaromil » Wed May 03, 2017 2:00 am

Gord wrote:Wait wait wait wait wait. Yes, we can. You just want to redefine it as neither understandable nor definable.


Sure, you can. You can define freedom however you like. It is freedom after all. But obviously I meant a strict definition possible only by the general consensus which can be based on... wait... freedom only. See? That is what I said earlier -- freedom is paradoxical. Any strict definition will be self contradictory.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 863
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Cadmusteeth » Wed May 03, 2017 4:12 am

Definitions are not absolute. They are limited in the scope for which they were created.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gord » Wed May 03, 2017 4:33 am

yaromil wrote:
Gord wrote:Wait wait wait wait wait. Yes, we can. You just want to redefine it as neither understandable nor definable.

Sure, you can. You can define freedom however you like. It is freedom after all. But obviously I meant a strict definition possible only by the general consensus which can be based on... wait... freedom only. See? That is what I said earlier -- freedom is paradoxical. Any strict definition will be self contradictory.

All I hear you saying is that anyone can argue against anything, therefore nothing is ever strictly defined.

I disagree. And I think my meaning here is only clear because we have used strictly defined meanings for the words we're using, by unspoken agreement.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2949
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed May 03, 2017 4:40 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Sorry, but no:
Just because something can't be predicted doesn't mean it's not deterministic.
Freedom doesn't mean creativity, it means the ability to choose different actions under identical conditions. But that is impossible.


The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment is deterministic, but different results are obtained from identical conditions, albeit in a predictable probability distribution.


True.
And this makes physicists so uneasy that they came up with the Manyworld hypothesis.
But in any case, the random quantum processes are the basic building blocks of the universe - they are statistically deterministic at the scales we usually talk about.
They aren't a magic source for Free Will.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25968
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 03, 2017 4:49 am

yaromil wrote: The unwillingness or inability of a sentient being to be a man brings it down to the level of animals. .
I hate to tell you, but modern humans are animals. You claim falls apart when you try to apply it to neanderthals, or homo erectus and go back in time. Where is your cut off point in our evolutionary history?

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5984
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Flash » Wed May 03, 2017 5:37 am

Yaromil.
You conflate the two meanings of the word "freedom". One, where it means a moral choice and the other where it means a simple physical freedom like the freedom of a gas of hydrogen cloud to evolve into a star system.

The senses of "freedom" are not identical, not even synonyms. This is sloppy thinking.

1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development. Determinism is repeatability, regularity, certainty. It feels like a necessity, inevitability, compulsion, violence.


You mean "freedom" is the objective property of the Universe like the atoms of hydrogen, gravity, electromagnetic waves? Absolutely not.

2) Freedom is fundamentally unknowable; the question of the existence of freedom is insolvable

Then how the hell do you know that "freedom is an objective property of the universe"?

3) Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil.

By whom? You? I say freedom is evil and determinism is good. And my cat, just like the rest of the Universe, doesn't care at all.

The duty of man, the purpose and meaning of human existence is to overcome determinism and to make the world freer.

Oh, you know what the meaning of human existence is, and it's not 42? Douglas Adams would be disappointed.

Knowledge entails responsibility; the criterion of truth is movement to freedom.

This is funny. You are quite deterministic about it aren't you. I almost hear you saying "this is the law of the universe and you are not free to break it".

4) The man is one who follows his moral duty, who is striving to freedom. The unwillingness or inability of a sentient being to be a man brings it down to the level of animals. The animal follows the laws of the universe, submits to forces without trying to overcome them.

Are you saying that man is determined (has no freedom) not to strive for freedom? What happened to your cherished freedom?

And don't insult the animals. My cat is a way freer than a lot of people I know.
So animals have to follow the laws of the Universe but men don't have to? Have you ever seen anyone breaking the laws of the Universe?

Okay, it's late and I am way too drunk now to follow this kindergarten philosophy any further. Why? the scotch has determined that I go to bed now. I have no moral choice.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2949
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed May 03, 2017 7:18 am

In physical systems, we often talk about the Degrees of Freedom, i.e. the number of parameters that can be changed to affect a change in the system.

Humans progress above all has lead to a dramatic increase in the "degrees of freedom" by which we can affect the lives of other and our own: what used to affect only our neighbors can now have global consequences. Our reach has extended from the sub-nuclear to the inter-stellar. We have the safety and luxury to try out things that in all likelihood would have let to ruin and death not long ago. And, on average, we have way more lifetime to affect change.

So while whatever degree of "freedom of decision" we possess hasn't changed, the effect such decisions can have are massively amplified by technology.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

yaromil
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby yaromil » Wed May 03, 2017 5:07 pm

Gord wrote:All I hear you saying is that anyone can argue against anything, therefore nothing is ever strictly defined.

Yes, and the reason for this is freedom. However, a temporary consensus (a temporary truth) is possible for everything except freedom. One implication is that people have the ability to learn/understand the world but this process is infinite.

Matthew Ellard wrote: Where is your cut off point in our evolutionary history?

The point is where people agree to reject all kind of violence and make a universal agreement. Have we reached this point? Not, but the idea is there and some people are ready for it, I am sure.

yaromil
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby yaromil » Wed May 03, 2017 5:46 pm

Flash wrote:Yaromil.
You conflate the two meanings of the word "freedom". One, where it means a moral choice and the other where it means a simple physical freedom like the freedom of a gas of hydrogen cloud to evolve into a star system.

The senses of "freedom" are not identical, not even synonyms. This is sloppy thinking.


I did this for the purpose of brevity. There are two meanings of "freedom" in my posting. First, it is a quality of the universe, second, it is how we feel this quality.

You mean "freedom" is the objective property of the Universe like the atoms of hydrogen, gravity, electromagnetic waves? Absolutely not.

It is a kind of property like an "ability to exist". It is philosophy.

Then how the hell do you know that "freedom is an objective property of the universe"?

You can "feel" freedom. And then you can use your ability to think.

I say freedom is evil and determinism is good. And my cat, just like the rest of the Universe, doesn't care at all.

The evolution of the universe creates a more complex and more free things. Like you and your cat. It does not care what you think of it, if you care or not. However, you have more freedom than your cat. The ability to say clever things is just one aspect of your freedom.

Oh, you know what the meaning of human existence is, and it's not 42? Douglas Adams would be disappointed.

The meaning of human existence is known everybody with brains. You do not know? I'll tell you. People usually want to make the world better and they do that by creating new things, things that make us, and the world, freer. Creativity is manifestation of man's freedom, of his unique personality. Those who do not have the ability to create strive not for freedom but to fulfill their animal needs. That is their "meaning". Accordingly, they are often like to make fun of "the meaning of life" of others.

Knowledge entails responsibility; the criterion of truth is movement to freedom.

This is funny. You are quite deterministic about it aren't you. I almost hear you saying "this is the law of the universe and you are not free to break it".

Try to imaging how things are in the court of law. What is the difference if you know the consequences of your actions, and if not? The same applies everywhere else.

Are you saying that man is determined (has no freedom) not to strive for freedom? What happened to your cherished freedom?

Freedom is paradoxical. One of its paradoxes: freedom is a necessity and not a necessity. It is difficult to understand, I know.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25968
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 04, 2017 2:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Where is your cut off point in our evolutionary history?
yaromil wrote:The point is where people agree to reject all kind of violence and make a universal agreement. Have we reached this point? No, but the idea is there and some people are ready for it, I am sure.
I have more bad news for you. Modern humans are going to go extinct and be replaced by another species.....in exactly the same way as homo Erectus went extinct and were replaced by modern humans.

The ability to justify any moral position or ethics for self benefit, existed in homo erectus, exists in modern humans and will exist in the species that replaces us. That's how evolution works. :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25968
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 04, 2017 2:12 am

yaromil wrote: The meaning of human existence is known (to) everybody with brains. You do not know? I'll tell you. People usually want to make the world better and they do that by creating new things, things that make us, and the world, freer.
Nope. Humans don't use DNA to reproduce. DNA uses humans to reproduce. There is no inherent moral ethics. in any species, on the planet.

All that has happened is that humans have achieved a complex mix of social interaction trade offs that allow for greater benefits as a whole, than if we worked as individuals.
:D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gord » Thu May 04, 2017 7:13 am

yaromil wrote:
Gord wrote:All I hear you saying is that anyone can argue against anything, therefore nothing is ever strictly defined.

Yes, and the reason for this is freedom. However, a temporary consensus (a temporary truth) is possible for everything except freedom.

But I previously pointed to definitions of freedom. Those are consensus meanings ("temporary truths") for the definition of "freedom".

...One implication is that people have the ability to learn/understand the world but this process is infinite.

:befuddled: Dah {!#%@} you talking about?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gord » Thu May 04, 2017 7:16 am

yaromil wrote:The meaning of human existence is known everybody with brains. You do not know? I'll tell you. People usually want to make the world better and they do that by creating new things, things that make us, and the world, freer.

Without a known or knowable creator of the human race, the meaning of life is subjective. What's meaningful to you will not be meaningful to someone else. And there does not appear to be any known or knowable creator. If human existence has any meaning at all, it's only to the individual human who is deliberating upon his or her own existence.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

yaromil
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby yaromil » Thu May 04, 2017 6:05 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:All that has happened is that humans have achieved a complex mix of social interaction trade offs that allow for greater benefits as a whole, than if we worked as individuals. [/color] :D

Yes, it is funny. You are one of those who believes that common good has appeared because of egoistic interests (while, probably, being robbed by the egoists who invented this lie)?

Gord wrote:But I previously pointed to definitions of freedom. Those are consensus meanings ("temporary truths") for the definition of "freedom".

Those were consensus meanings.

Gord wrote:Without a known or knowable creator of the human race, the meaning of life is subjective. What's meaningful to you will not be meaningful to someone else. And there does not appear to be any known or knowable creator. If human existence has any meaning at all, it's only to the individual human who is deliberating upon his or her own existence.

You may notice we just happened to be talking about this "creator". Here are words from the original post: "1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development."

Another thing to consider: Freedom is at the top of all values so our free goals even though they look different ultimately lead to it.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7951
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Poodle » Thu May 04, 2017 8:34 pm

yaromil wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:All that has happened is that humans have achieved a complex mix of social interaction trade offs that allow for greater benefits as a whole, than if we worked as individuals. [/color] :D

Yes, it is funny. You are one of those who believes that common good has appeared because of egoistic interests (while, probably, being robbed by the egoists who invented this lie)?


Simple declaration - and in opposition to what was posited, despite appearing to agree with it. Standard technique. Did you actually read what Matthew posted, or did your knees jerk so violently that your response came immediately out of the blue?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25968
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri May 05, 2017 12:49 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:All that has happened is that humans have achieved a complex mix of social interaction trade offs that allow for greater benefits as a whole, than if we worked as individuals. :D
yaromil wrote: Yes, it is funny. You are one of those who believes that common good has appeared because of egoistic interests (while, probably, being robbed by the egoists who invented this lie)?
Well for a start the mathematics is sound and supported by empirical evidence as it is the basis of social economics. However why do hard work to explain and understand things when you can make stuff up like you do?
:lol:

Are you going to be like John "the savage" from Brave New World and regain your "freedom" from Society by living in a mud hut? So why are you posting on a computer created by the social interactions and trade offs between humans? :lol:

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3446
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Lausten » Fri May 05, 2017 1:24 am

Gord wrote:All I hear you saying is that anyone can argue against anything, therefore nothing is ever strictly defined.


That, plus time is how you win arguments on the internet.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3446
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Lausten » Fri May 05, 2017 1:26 am

<and the> opposite <of> determinism.
There is no aim to evolution.
insolvable means insoluble.
Determinism is learned? That doesn't make any sense
The second sentence in #2 made me cry.
begets? really? begets?
The world is already free.
The man? what man?

I started skimming it after that. It was too painful.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gord » Fri May 05, 2017 1:49 am

yaromil wrote:
Gord wrote:But I previously pointed to definitions of freedom. Those are consensus meanings ("temporary truths") for the definition of "freedom".

Those were consensus meanings.

Some of them were, some of them are. Are you trying to come up with one that will be?

Gord wrote:Without a known or knowable creator of the human race, the meaning of life is subjective. What's meaningful to you will not be meaningful to someone else. And there does not appear to be any known or knowable creator. If human existence has any meaning at all, it's only to the individual human who is deliberating upon his or her own existence.

You may notice we just happened to be talking about this "creator".

No, I hadn't noticed.

Here are words from the original post: "1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development."

Another thing to consider: Freedom is at the top of all values so our free goals even though they look different ultimately lead to it.

Those words do not propose a creator. Simply claiming something is an objective property opposite to another objective property does not invoke a deity. And misusing the concept of evolution is pretty standard these days, so claiming it has an "aim" is not necessarily meant to be an argument for a creator god.

But if that was your intent, then I accept that your definition for "freedom" is dependent upon a creator god of some sort. That sort of defeats your attempt to reach a consensus over your proposed new definition for the word. There does not appear to be any known or knowable creator.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

yaromil
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby yaromil » Fri May 05, 2017 5:11 pm

Gord wrote:Those words do not propose a creator.

The property "an ability to create new things"? Ok, you win.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9179
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri May 05, 2017 5:25 pm

yaromil wrote:
Gord wrote:Those words do not propose a creator.

The property "an ability to create new things"? Ok, you win.

Ha, ha. Fun to see sarcasm used as oppossed to a recognition of (1. Defeat)(2. A different way of looking at or defining the same observation)(3. reality is "defined" much like anything else)(4. What is the offending notion?---create? new?? things???)

ie.......sarcasm more than name calling is an indicator of no further ability to grow..... aka ... new things NOT being created.... if thats how you view our current epistemology.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gord » Sat May 06, 2017 3:05 am

yaromil wrote:
Gord wrote:Those words do not propose a creator.

The property "an ability to create new things"? Ok, you win.

:confused: I win? This isn't a competition, I think we're trying to reach a consensus on meaning.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Gustaave
New Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gustaave » Mon May 22, 2017 4:55 am

yaromil wrote:
Gord wrote:This just seems to be an attempt to somehow redefine the term "freedom" to make it seem like something that will only be possessed by the ethical stance you yourself favour. In other words, if I say I don't I don't believe in free will, then I fall into your "Evil" category. Or if I don't think it's my duty to strive to your definition of "freedom", then I am not moral.


It may seem at first but if we look a little deeper it will make a lot of sense. First, we have to accept that we cannot understand (or define) freedom. Freedom is paradoxical. It cannot exist and it cannot not exist. To exist means to repeat itself but freedom never repeats itself. Freedom is unpredictable. Second, you may not believe in free will but it doesnt change the fact that you are NOT deterministic (in any sense) automat. If you are capable to produce something new (ie to be unpredictable) you are free so some degree (BTW, otherwise any discussions are meaningless).

All ethical stuff is just the consequences.

ElectricMonk wrote:of course the evolution of the universe and life is fully deterministic, as is all human interaction. Determinism doesn't necessitate repeatability, since it is next to impossible to fully recreate initial conditions.
The question to what degree we have Free Will is highly contentious, but there is no reason to believe that it violates determinism, i.e. that, all things being equal, people would have a choice of doing things differently than they do.


You missed the most important thing. Of course people as a rule repeat their actions, just like the rest of things in the universe. Freedom shows itself only when something NEW is created. Like art for instance. There is no law to create art and it will never be. The same appears in evolution. Something new, like life, is certainly cannot be deterministically produced from previouse conditions. We should not confuse unrepeatability with random variations. Repetitions are always differ from one another, however we are able to see them and to learn natural laws from them. The definition of the new is 'it has not existed before', the definition of the natural law is 'it repeat itself'.


the definition of the natural law is 'it repeat itself. waw :shock:

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:18 pm

Er, you've got a bit of cognitive dissonance on your brain.
yaromil wrote:Freedom is fundamentally unknowable; the question of the existence of freedom is insolvable.

...and then...
yaromil wrote:Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development.
-snip-
Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil.
-snip-
Freedom begets all other values.

So, you maintain that the concept of freedom is not only unknowable, but we can't even determine whether such a concept exists. Then, you go on to make claims about what freedom is, does, is perceived as, and creates. Sounds like religion to me.

Also, there's no such thing as objective ethics. Like communism, objective ethics cannot exist unless every single person in the system believes in its tenets and adheres to them fully. Given the range of human behavior, I don't see that happening.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28704
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Gord » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:00 am

LunaNik wrote:...communism...cannot exist unless every single person in the system believes in its tenets and adheres to them fully.

Ha! Typical bourgeoisie capitalist lies. :P

My parents ran a perfectly viable communist system called the family household for many years, despite few* of their children adhering to the rules fully.





*or maybe none. Hey! I ain't sayin' nothin'.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1612
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:05 am

LMAO!
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Phoenix76 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:41 am

Freedom - The state of being free, especially to enjoy political and civil liberties.
Free - Able to act at will; not under compulsion or restraint.

Well the first definition sounds nice and cozy, but the actual word free conjures some problems. See, to act at will, and drive my car at 200 kph, will probably ensure my so called freedom is swiftly curtailed.

And do not try to convince me that we are not under certain compulsions and restraints.

So are any of us really free? Free to do what we want, when we want. Don't think so. All of us have some sort of obligation within our society, so how can we be free? Lovely thought, but?

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 863
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Cadmusteeth » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:23 pm

We are free to make certain decisions, but we do not have absolute freedoms. It just isn't possible.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4664
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Foundations of objective ethics

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:57 pm

Some pretty heavy philosophy regarding right and wrong:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Krieger% ... 8/Y/M.html
On the lunatic fringe of the radical center.


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests