The end of Philosophy • Hacker News Board

Re: The end of Philosophy

#21

Post by jerf » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 2:20 AM UTC

trominos wrote: post #16

astine wrote: post #12

To paraphrase the article: Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences. If morality is purely subjective, then issues such as as gay marriage become purely a matter of taste. One person has t…

> Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences. If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not o…

It should be pointed out that postmodern subjective ethics is not the simple opposite of objective reality. While postmodern subjective morality has fundamental contradictions (as I outline in my other post here), that doesn't prove the existence of an objective morality. It merely shows that for any given thing that may be worth calling a "morality" there will be an objective component. If there is "an" objective morality, it will have to come from some other source.

Re: The end of Philosophy

#22

Post by trominos » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 2:53 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #20

astine wrote: post #12

To paraphrase the article: Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences. If morality is purely subjective, then issues such as as gay marriage become purely a matter of taste. One person has t…

One of the great accomplishments of mathematics in the 20th century was to establish that the self-referential paradox ("This sentence is a lie") was not merely a clever word game or unimportant paradox to be waved away as irrelevant, but a deep and profound true paradox with implications that challenged mathematics to the core and changed it forever. Merely reading a bit about Godel's proof isn't enough; you need to…

> If everything that one person chooses to believe is true for them, and that person chooses to believe that there is an objective truth that precludes this statement, then you have a problem.

I can't parse this sentence at all -- mostly, I think, because "true for them" doesn't seem to mean anything. Can you clarify? Also, what's the problem you're talking about?

Re: The end of Philosophy

#23

Post by astine » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 2:58 AM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #18

astine wrote: post #12

To paraphrase the article: Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences. If morality is purely subjective, then issues such as as gay marriage become purely a matter of taste. One person has t…

"This is a problem to say the least." Can you state more clearly where you think the problem is? Or is it simply that you don't find this arrangement preferable?

The problem, is that my preference is now morality.

Re: The end of Philosophy

#24

Post by astine » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 3:37 AM UTC

trominos wrote: post #16

astine wrote: post #12

To paraphrase the article: Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences. If morality is purely subjective, then issues such as as gay marriage become purely a matter of taste. One person has t…

> Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences. If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not o…

Why are you apologizing? Did you make reality this way? Are you God?! Or are you just condescending me?

If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to disprove it.

I'm going to disagree with you on this point, because not only the existence of objective morality, but the existence of object truth of any kind depends on its falsity.

As you say, my brain makes certain a priori assumptions about reality. Among these, are the existence of object morality, the utility of the senses, and fundamental correctness of human reason. My belief in these are the default. If I am to doubt any of these things you must provide me with a concrete reason to do so.

All reasoning proceeds from assumptions and unless we make allowance for assumption, we must assent to solipsism (or something equally silly.) For, if we are to assume that all premises are false, unless proved otherwise, then what premises are true? People who hold the stance tend to make all sorts of assumptions that they don't realize are assumptions. Thus, I will maintain that rather than arguing from a 'nothing is true until proven' stance, that it is better to argue from a 'default brain state is true' until disproved stance.' Which, would then place the burden of proof on you.

* I am 100% certain that you cannot give a definition of "morality" that both meshes with what's expected of the term and that implies the existence of some fundamental objective framework for determining what's right and what's wrong. Just think about it for a while.*

As you state, expectations can be wrong. However, for the sake of sanity, it is better to presuppose that they are less wrong than more wrong. The people nearly universally agree that both theft and murder are wrong, that they disagree on whether lethal force is justified in defense of property can be attributed to bias of experience.

Or, alternatively [and not equivalently, but evocatively]: we're all just particles. You can give any brilliant argument you like about the morality of an action, and my particles are just gonna keep on doing whatever the fuck they want.

Except that I'm not a physicalist. If I were,I would already agree with you.

Re: The end of Philosophy

#25

Post by trominos » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 4:22 AM UTC

astine wrote: post #24

trominos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences. If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not o…

Why are you apologizing? Did you make reality this way? Are you God?! Or are you just condescending me? If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to disprove it. I'm going to disagree with you on this point, because not only the existence of objective morality, but the existence of object truth of any kind depen…

All right, I think I sort of screwed up my first post, because it failed to convey my most fundamental feeling about "morality": I think that the word "morality" (also "ethics") is, to a truly ridiculous extent, not well-defined.

That's why I asked you to define the word -- I can't argue about it otherwise. I really don't think there's any good definition other than, "A system of judging actions to be either 'right' or 'wrong,' such that actions that I am uncomfortable with are designated 'wrong'."

Well, there are variants of the above (change "I'm uncomfortable" to "some group of people, possibly directed by arbitrary external rules, is uncomfortable"), but the point is that I think any definition that roughly corresponds to the meaning we intuitively attribute to the word needs a lot of subjectivity in it.

As long as "morality" stays undefined, I obviously can't refute your premise that objective morality exists. I mean, it's your fucking premise.

Re: The end of Philosophy

#26

Post by trominos » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 4:30 AM UTC

aaronasterling wrote: post #4

Am I missing something or does this have nothing to do with "new atheism"? "It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning." It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only (known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capab…

It has everything to do with "new atheism".

Theists, for the most part, have their moral outlook determined by their respective religions. Which is stupid, but at least it's standardized.

Many atheists believe that their morality is determined by reason. Brooks' point is that there's no such thing as morality determined purely by reason. There are necessarily some subjective premises in there.

All that this observation does is counter-refute atheists' refutation of the idea that atheists can't be moral. The idea that atheists can't be moral is still stupid (IMO), but not for the reason that some atheists say.

Re: The end of Philosophy

#27

Post by aaronasterling » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 5:01 AM UTC

trominos wrote: post #26

aaronasterling wrote: post #4

Am I missing something or does this have nothing to do with "new atheism"? "It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning." It seems to me that the position of "new atheists" is that science is the only (known) universal means of answering the questions that it is capab…

It has everything to do with "new atheism". Theists, for the most part, have their moral outlook determined by their respective religions. Which is stupid, but at least it's standardized. Many atheists believe that their morality is determined by reason. Brooks' point is that there's no such thing as morality determined purely by reason. There are necessarily some subjective premises in there. All that this observati…

I don't think it even does that though.

if the ability to absorb a system of ethics is an inherited trait, then atheists have presumably inherited the ability as well and would therefore be (from a statistical perspective) as ethical as everyone else.

the basis of his claim (snyde corner of the mouth slander, really) undermines the claim itself. the whole thing cancels out rather nicely.

Re: The end of Philosophy

#28

Post by jerf » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 5:06 AM UTC

trominos wrote: post #22

jerf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the great accomplishments of mathematics in the 20th century was to establish that the self-referential paradox ("This sentence is a lie") was not merely a clever word game or unimportant paradox to be waved away as irrelevant, but a deep and profound true paradox with implications that challenged mathematics to the core and changed it forever. Merely reading a bit about Godel's proof isn't enough; you need to…

> If everything that one person chooses to believe is true for them, and that person chooses to believe that there is an objective truth that precludes this statement, then you have a problem. I can't parse this sentence at all -- mostly, I think, because "true for them" doesn't seem to mean anything. Can you clarify? Also, what's the problem you're talking about?

Simplified postmodernism says that something can be "true for you" but also "not true for me"; it's the subjectivity of truth. "Abortion is an absolute human right" can be "true for you" but not "true for me".

This is the contradiction I refer to. You can't have truth-entirely-relative-to-a-person and even one person claiming that he believes his truth applies to all. There are options, but they all involve some other sort of absolute axiom that force you to judge some people's beliefs as false as a consequence. Postmodernists try to have it both ways, deflecting all moral criticism with "it's all relative" while still fairly freely wielding absolutes with abandon.

(Incidentally, even if you can't find an academic who actually wrote this down somewhere in some pithy form that could be cited, I have dealt with plenty of people in person at university who did this repeatedly and, to my mind, blatantly. I know I'm glossing over the belief system a bit since this is a comment on the web and not a dissertation, but I know people with this belief system exist. I've personally encountered them.)

You reference a "problem"; were you actually referring to astine's "This is a problem to say the least."? I can't answer to that, those aren't my words.

Re: The end of Philosophy

#29

Post by aaronasterling » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 5:25 AM UTC

astine wrote: post #24

trominos wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dear children, your silly worldview of objective rights and wrongs is outdated and wrong. Morality is purely subjective, a matter of taste. I provide no evidence or reasoning for my opinions but I do expect you to be challenged and wowed by their far-reaching consequences. If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not o…

Why are you apologizing? Did you make reality this way? Are you God?! Or are you just condescending me? If you think that there is some objective morality that is inherent to the universe, the burden of proof is very much on you to show that, not on me to disprove it. I'm going to disagree with you on this point, because not only the existence of objective morality, but the existence of object truth of any kind depen…

I don't understand how you claim that your sense of objective morality is on the same footing as utility of the senses and the fundamental correctness of human reason in terms of accepting them as a foundation for reasonable argument.

humans from different cultures will sense many things the same way. a small black dot will be a small black dot and so forth. likewise, i can believe that ancient japan would have invented a computer if given sufficient time in some alternate reality. once the appropriate questions had been asked and answered of course.

I don't see the same thing for morality though. Or at least not to anywhere near the same degree.

Re: The end of Philosophy

#30

Post by koningrobot » Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 7:34 AM UTC

astine wrote: post #14

aaronasterling wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He just messes up and shows his ignorance/stupidity when he tries to say that "man is more complex then an avatar of pure reason" implies "the processes by which man was created are more than is understandable by pure reason". believe what you want but thats a shoddy piece of reasoning.

Strictly speaking, everything is more than is understandable by pure reason.

How so? Isn't it just a matter of having enough "reasoning power" and information? What do "everything" and "understandable" mean in this sentence?