Assumptions for a Moral System

[Dialog]

Assumptions for a Moral System

Hello reasonable fellows. Let me introduce myself, my name is Dialog, but there are some who know me as... David. You may know me so as well, if that is what you desire. (either name is fine). I love a good verbal scrap, and am looking forward to having a few. Besides some argumentational armwrestling, however, I really enjoy hearing peoples' ideas, and figuring out things together. So, perhaps this is a good place to be.

Now that is out of the way, I have a question. But the question requires some introduction and explanation, so off I go:

System:
A network of conceptual objects. Each conceptual object carries some meaning, and is basically a little block of information. The links in the network consist of inferences. If you have two extant concepts:
'Stars are hot'
'The sun is a star'
Then these two invariably lead to a new conceptual object:
'The sun is hot'

Assumption:
Conceptual objects that have no inferences leading to them, are assumptions. They are a block of information without any support inside the system, they only support other blocks. If an assumption falls away, all the blocks that relied on it, also fall away.
Adding assumptions increases the range of the system on which it is built, opening up new trees of inference. It also, however, increases the chance that part of the system is based on something that is false. (The one and only necessary argument against religion, for me ).

Moral:
The domain of thought describing how we do/should act.

Now, most of us have heard that we are incapable of acting morally without a belief in god. That is understandable, as the people who claim this tend to have its existence as a firmly rooted assumption on which their world view is built. They can not contemplate a moral framework without it. We of course... can .

I was wondering if it would be possible for us to formulate a set of assumptions of which we agree that they are sufficient for creating the basis for inference towards moral behavior. Or, perhaps, to be more precise, a set of assumptions of which we think that holding them will generate behavior which we would title as 'moral'.

Try to stay away from imperatives, 'Thou shallt nots' are not really assumptions, they are commands. Also, try to give it a very short title which can be used to refer to it in further discussion. Here's a few from me, no where near to complete, but just a little ball to throw up. Feel free to dispute any of them, I'm looking forward to it :

- The Basics (a set of 3 assumptions)
* I exist
* Reality exists
* I interact with reality

These three basically state that you exist inside a world, which you percieve and which you affect. They are a seperate discussion in and of themselves, but describe something so basic, that I think it is a discussion we can hold at a later time if we feel so inclined.

- Assumption of Similarity
* I share a quintessential first-person similarity with everyone

People are very different from eachother, but we are also very much the same. This is basically the assumption that everyone has a 'first-person-perspective'. It's possible to build a system of morality on the idea that you are the only conscious person on this earth, with the rest just zombies, and there's no way anyone can disprove you. Somehow, though, the Assumption of Similarity seems reasonable nonetheless.

- Assumption of Incertitude
* Nothing is ever certain

As every concept is based on an assumption, and every assumption can be false, every concept can be false. There is no magical system that sustains itself, no moral perpetuum mobile. Any system of moral decision making needs upkeep, as it is always possible to be wrong about everything, and new information needs to be assimilated.

(Actually, that sounds like another assumption in and of itself, but first, I think I will throw this to the wolves)

Feast, you lupines!

Dialog

 

[obsidianavenger]

i don't have too much time so i am just going to propose some similar but less nebulous, thus more certain, assumptions (usually called axioms, self evident truths) (btw i didn;t come up with these, if you want to know who did, google it )

1. existence exists.

just try to argue for the non-existence of existence without appealing to concepts that are contained in existence- oh wait, you can't.. lol

2. consciousness is consciousness *of* something

in order to be aware there must be something external to you for you to be aware of.

3. the law of identity

a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. as much as i hate to say this cause it makes me feel like a tool, A is A

i think these assumptions would eliminate a lot of uncertainty in your system while providing basically the same results. let me know what you think.

 

[creativesoul]

Assumption of Incertitude
* Nothing is ever certain

Are you certain of this?

 

[Ozymandyus]

No reason to start tearing down at perfectly reasonable assumptions, OA. There is no room to deny any of those assumptions, to even call them assumptions seems to me to be a stretch.

There are only one or two assumptions that need be made in my opinion - they are large and far reaching but they precede any other assertion that can be made. The first is: Sensory data comes from or points to Something. This precedes any other statement, and is implicit assumption before you start talking about existence and A is A. It may seem like a strange statement, but it is also implied by the second, more important assumption, the most basic assumption of all...Everything else follows from these two assumptions. We define the logically consistent parts of that Something as reality, we define our place within that reality as "I", we define the length of our interactions as our existence, our abilities to affect that reality as interactions, we define other beings in that reality that can also interact and think as other people.

Now, the assumption can be challenged, but not in any meaningful way. It does not matter if the 'I' that experiences sensory data is a brain in a vat, or in the matrix, or being tricked by a malevolent God - the assumption still holds up under all those circumstances. It does not matter if some of my sense evidence deceives me, because that still points toward something - perhaps a fact about my own abilities to interact, perhaps a truth about the something around me. The application of logic to that sensory data leads to all conceptual objects - and rigorous application leaves out any need for additional assumptions. This application hasn't been done very well throughout human history, so there are all sorts of false conceptual objects that are foundational to society.

Now, I realize these sorts of assumptions are rarely considered to be a starting step, but the truth is they are ALWAYS the starting step. Before you can make a claim about existence you are implicitly making a claim about awareness and logic.

Anyway, from that assumption the entirety of morality and reality can be built. The intelligible structure of our world that is revealed through the application of logic to the data which we can receive through our senses shows us all sorts of important facts that are the foundations of morality. We can be happy or sad, experience pleasure or pain, etc etc. We then can notice that our actions have consequences, and our future selves can be affected by our current selves. From this, all utilitarian moral Oughts emerge.

 

[Doc.]

Moral:
The domain of thought describing how we do/should act.

I think the starting point should be why do we need morals, what purpose do morals serve. Since we are social creatures and we constantly interact with other creatures, moral could be identified as "The domain of thought describing how we do/should interact with others". every action and interaction follows a certain purpose if they are under our control. these actions are limited by morals, but why are they limited?

do we seek for fairness in interactions (I don't kill you if you don't kill me, i will give you this if you give me that)? why? here i get a bit lost. sorry i think as I type

probably because we want to survive as long as possible and multiply. for this to be achieved we need to live as groups, and therefore morals are just rules following which we can survive and multiply, but we are not limited by these two desires alone, we also seek content.

so morals let us survive, multiply and experience contentment. different people get content from different things, and this is why morals vary.

does this sound right? please find a gap here.

 

[Digitised]

Morals are just personal values.

Morality as a system is merely a structure of agreement or control of certain values or behaviors, usually in a social setting.


We have individual values, and we sometimes label some of these values which determine out actions, morals.
They are not necessary but we may decide to value such a basic (although flawed) system as a means of forming social contracts.
It stands to reason that society would not collapse if all moral law was erased, since we all value our safety, freedom, friends, family, property etc, and even without the watchful eye of law, we would still strive to protect what we value.

 

[mandangalo18]

i don't have too much time so i am just going to propose some similar but less nebulous, thus more certain, assumptions (usually called axioms, self evident truths) (btw i didn;t come up with these, if you want to know who did, google it )

1. existence exists.

just try to argue for the non-existence of existence without appealing to concepts that are contained in existence- oh wait, you can't.. lol

2. consciousness is consciousness *of* something

in order to be aware there must be something external to you for you to be aware of.

3. the law of identity

a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. as much as i hate to say this cause it makes me feel like a tool, A is A

i think these assumptions would eliminate a lot of uncertainty in your system while providing basically the same results. let me know what you think.

Objectivism is awesome to use on theists.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Morals are just personal values.

Morality as a system is merely a structure of agreement or control of certain values or behaviors, usually in a social setting.


We have individual values, and we sometimes label some of these values which determine out actions, morals.
They are not necessary but we may decide to value such a basic (although flawed) system as a means of forming social contracts.
It stands to reason that society would not collapse if all moral law was erased, since we all value our safety, freedom, friends, family, property etc, and even without the watchful eye of law, we would still strive to protect what we value.

This often happens with discussions about morality... people talk about it in different ways. Maybe we should get a few definitions out there...

As it is usually used, morality simply means a set of beliefs distinguishing between right and wrong behaviors. Usually these behaviors are categorized as right or wrong because they cause benefit or harm. Everyone has a set of beliefs like this, and not everyone agrees, so it could be said to be based on values. This is descriptive morality and is not what we are talking about at the moment.

In the way we are trying to use it in this thread we are talking more specifically about ethics, the systematic study of morality. The question being asked is basically can morality have a universal sense, is there an ideal code of conduct which is solidly based on a minimum set of very reasonable assumptions? What this normative morality would prescribe would come much later, and needs not be discussed yet.

So, for the thread, try to separate out your understanding of social morality, of the sorts of codes of right and wrong that are described to us throughout our lives, and focus on the foundations that precede our understanding of what in particular is right and wrong.

 

[Nogre]

probably because we want to survive as long as possible and multiply.

I would question this. In finding the answer to what we ought to do, we're really defining exactly what we want to do. There is no truth to be found; we're defining it ourselves. Although through using logic, we can find prescriptive "truth" in the same way we find descriptive truth through science. But I don't think that the perpetuation of society is really the reason that we should prescribe for acting. That's certainly why a basic moral system evolved, but this doesn't necessarily mean that this is the answer to the reason why we should act.

As for answering the OP, agree with the assumptions you outline, but I do have some comments. For the assumption of incertitude, I would question the impact of this. If it's to simply enforce the fact that we should be open to new ideas and being wrong, then sure, I agree. But I think that's simply being intellectually honest and not necessarily something that needs to be outlined as an assumption. Then there's the assumption of similarity. While the rest are pretty much necessary to really approach any sort of philosphy, this is where you're really getting into tackling the assumption that morality is based on, so it's the point that needs the most attention and discussion.

I think it's very interesting and has several implications for ethics. Of course, it's not really something that you could use to start theorizing about morality. We've discussed the subject elsewhere and I think most people have agreed that you need to start with a statement of "ought" in order to base morality on an assumption. These do provide an important framework, though.

My own assumption that I accept for this purpose is the vacuum assumption:

If someone is acting in a vacuum, they ought to act based on their preferences.

From this, I deduce that the fulfillment of preferences is valuable and the vioation of preferences is anti-valuable (or to be avoided). From there, utilitarianism is only a short hop. I've been discussing this in another thread (here) and the discussion has been very interesting although my busy schedule has brought it to a halt.

 

[creativesoul]

Interesting discussion, morality and/or personal belief(s) are one of my favorite philosophical subject matters...

Nogre wrote:

In finding the answer to what we ought to do, we're really defining exactly what we want to do.

If, and only iff, one's wants correspond to one's sense of ought. That is not necessarily true in all cases. Someone can want that which they believe to be 'wrong'...

There is no truth to be found; we're defining it ourselves. Although through using logic, we can find prescriptive "truth" in the same way we find descriptive truth through science.

Interestingly put Nogre.

I would agree that 'truth' does not exist 'out there' - in order to be found. However, I am not so sure about this idea of 'finding' truth anywhere, and that necessarily includes through logic. Truth is not found - it is determined. It seems - to me at least - to be more like establishing a truth-value or perhaps the dependability or accuracy of an idea or set of ideas via conscious and deliberate correlation/comparison, one of which that is based upon previously known fact(s).

Here is my thinking on that...

1.) Truth is a property(or not) of a proposition. A proposition is contingent upon language for it's existence. Language is completely man-made. Therefore, 'truth' is also completely man-made.

2.) A fact would be information which necessarily has a basis in objective reality(actuality). Facts must correspond to actuality.

3.) Actuality is not dependent upon, nor derived from, something else.

Therefore 'truth' itself, does not exist in actuality. It is a man-made determination based upon a correlative measure between a proposition or a set of propositions and previously established fact(s), which is/are necessarily based upon a repeatable and consistent correlation to actuality. Truth then, should reflect actuality, not be sought after as though it exists in actuality.




Now if we apply this to the OP, we can see that one's moral sense of ought is what determines what one considers to be 'right or wrong'. Let's skip the extistentialism. One's morality is founded completely upon/in their personal belief system - everything which one comes to believe is true. Whether or not the elements which combine to produce that system are actually true in the sense that they correspond to known fact is irrelevent. So, if we are to formulate a set of assumptions from which to build a moral code, we must be very careful concerning that foundation, because there are no absolute and universally consistent morals. Where then, could we begin?

1.) Feeling appreciated/accepted is a universal human need.
2.) Every human wants to be valued.

How's that for starters?

 

[obsidianavenger]

seems like from that assumption you get the idea that people are *owed* value rather than earn it. which would tend to devalue the whole concept of value; telling someone they "ought" to value someone else that they do not value only makes sense when you can demonstrate a good reason why that is the case. "because they want you to" isn't a good reason in my book.

 

[creativesoul]

OA,

How did you get there from what was written?

 

[Ozymandyus]

I would agree that 'truth' does not exist 'out there' - in order to be found. However, I am not so sure about this idea of 'finding' truth anywhere, and that necessarily includes through logic. Truth is not found - it is determined. It seems - to me at least - to be more like establishing a truth-value or perhaps the dependability or accuracy of an idea or set of ideas via conscious and deliberate correlation/comparison, one of which that is based upon previously known fact(s).

Here is my thinking on that...

1.) Truth is a property(or not) of a proposition. A proposition is contingent upon language for it's existence. Language is completely man-made. Therefore, 'truth' is also completely man-made.

2.) A fact would be information which necessarily has a basis in objective reality(actuality). Facts must correspond to actuality.

3.) Actuality is not dependent upon, nor derived from, something else.

Therefore 'truth' itself, does not exist in actuality. It is a man-made determination based upon a correlative measure between a proposition or a set of propositions and previously established fact(s), which is/are necessarily based upon a repeatable and consistent correlation to actuality. Truth then, should reflect actuality, not be sought after as though it exists in actuality.

I disagree with this entire line of reasoning. Your premise is entirely false.

Truth is not a property of a proposition - a proposition is a lingual representation of some facet of The Way Things Are. It can be a TRUE representation of The Way Things Are, or it can be a FALSE representation of that thing. The determination of the truth value of that proposition requires SCIENCE - testing that proposition in reality, in action. That is because the truth resides IN THE REALITY and not in the proposition, which is what you are claiming.

You are somehow drawing a line between Truth and Facts/actuality, which does not exist. Facts/Actuality ARE truth.

If, and only if, one's wants correspond to one's sense of ought. That is not necessarily true in all cases. Someone can want that which they believe to be 'wrong'...

This is not actually true - it's just a distortion of what WANT actually means. For example, I may think I ought Not look at porn, but I want to do it anyway. However, that is simply disguising the reasons WHY I think it's wrong, which have to do with conflicting Wants - I want to be seen as respectable, I want to keep my mind on my work, I don't want to treat women as objects.

In any case, I believe that it is possible to move towards a more universal morality. It needs to be approached scientifically and open-mindedly, and we can't allow a prescriptive morality that makes universal claims without taking into account subjective circumstance to dominate our thoughts about morality - it need not be so rigid. A morality that leaves space for the plasticity of the human mind seems entirely possible to me, and is in fact what we've been moving toward for the last several hundred years.

That's enough... for now.

Man, OA, you need to read some non-free market related material for a while, it seems to dominate your every thought.

 

[obsidianavenger]

1.) Feeling appreciated/accepted is a universal human need.
2.) Every human wants to be valued.

How's that for starters?

if we begin with the assumption that everyone wants to be valued it seems to follow that our duty would be to value them...

perhaps a better assumption (one that we make anyways) is that everyone has a mind as i do. from that you can get that people ought not to be treated in certain ways that are odious to people with minds.

edit: obviously not me personally, but *i* as in the individual agent in question.

 

[creativesoul]

creativesoul wrote:

I would agree that 'truth' does not exist 'out there' - in order to be found. However, I am not so sure about this idea of 'finding' truth anywhere, and that necessarily includes through logic. Truth is not found - it is determined. It seems - to me at least - to be more like establishing a truth-value or perhaps the dependability or accuracy of an idea or set of ideas via conscious and deliberate correlation/comparison, one of which that is based upon previously known fact(s).

Here is my thinking on that...

1.) Truth is a property(or not) of a proposition. A proposition is contingent upon language for it's existence. Language is completely man-made. Therefore, 'truth' is also completely man-made.

2.) A fact would be information which necessarily has a basis in objective reality(actuality). Facts must correspond to actuality.

3.) Actuality is not dependent upon, nor derived from, something else.

Therefore 'truth' itself, does not exist in actuality. It is a man-made determination based upon a correlative measure between a proposition or a set of propositions and previously established fact(s), which is/are necessarily based upon a repeatable and consistent correlation to actuality. Truth then, should reflect actuality, not be sought after as though it exists in actuality.

Oxy wrote:

I disagree with this entire line of reasoning. Your premise is entirely false.

Truth is not a property of a proposition - a proposition is a lingual representation of some facet of The Way Things Are. It can be a TRUE representation of The Way Things Are, or it can be a FALSE representation of that thing. The determination of the truth value of that proposition requires SCIENCE - testing that proposition in reality, in action. That is because the truth resides IN THE REALITY and not in the proposition, which is what you are claiming.

How does this establish that truth exists outside of language? :? You'll have to do better than this.

You are somehow drawing a line between Truth and Facts/actuality, which does not exist. Facts/Actuality ARE truth.

I showed that line. Show me a truth, of any kind, which exists outside of being a property of a proposition.

creativesoul wrote:

If, and only if, one's wants correspond to one's sense of ought. That is not necessarily true in all cases. Someone can want that which they believe to be 'wrong'...

This is not actually true - it's just a distortion of what WANT actually means. For example, I may think I ought Not look at porn, but I want to do it anyway. However, that is simply disguising the reasons WHY I think it's wrong, which have to do with conflicting Wants - I want to be seen as respectable, I want to keep my mind on my work, I don't want to treat women as objects.

How does that refute the claim that someone can want something that they believe is wrong? You just bolstered that claim as far as I can tell.

The sense of ought does not establish all personal wants/desires.

In any case, I believe that it is possible to move towards a more universal morality. It needs to be approached scientifically and open-mindedly, and we can't allow a prescriptive morality that makes universal claims without taking into account subjective circumstance to dominate our thoughts about morality - it need not be so rigid. A morality that leaves space for the plasticity of the human mind seems entirely possible to me, and is in fact what we've been moving toward for the last several hundred years.

That's enough... for now.

I would agree here.

 

[Ozymandyus]

How does this establish that truth exists outside of language? You'll have to do better than this.

I showed that line. Show me a truth, of any kind, which exists outside of being a property of a proposition.

You seem to be working under a very different definition of truth. To me it is simple, a true proposition = a fact. There can be no distinguishing the two. By your own definition "A fact would be information which necessarily has a basis in objective reality(actuality). Facts must correspond to actuality. "
Example True Propositions: Mass is drawn towards Mass. Space and Time are linked. 1-1=0. My face absorbs and reflects photons of different wavelengths. Etc Etc. I could go on listing true propositions for hours, but what's the point? Not even sure what you think you are saying. These are all True propositions, and they can be tested and independently verified. They are properties of the reality that we find ourselves in, and their truth has nothing to do with the language I use to convey them.

How does that refute the claim that someone can want something that they believe is wrong? You just bolstered that claim as far as I can tell.

The sense of ought does not establish all personal wants/desires.

I was refuting your use of the word of WANT vs OUGHT. They are the SAME thing. What you Ought to do IS what you Want to do. It isn't possible, therefore, to want something that you believe is 'wrong' - because what you believe is wrong IS simple another way of saying you believe you DO NOT WANT IT. Someone that 'wants' to do something wrong is simply forgetting what they actually want, misjudging the effects of their actions or their true Ought is that occasionally, in certain situations, they should partake in looking at porn in moderation.
As I was saying at the end of my last post, a multiplicity of conflicting wants can be distilled into a moral code... that code need not be rigidly commanding the same action to every situation. The problem is that the word ought is often given some sort of medieval sense that proclaims an absolute moral should in every situation, which is not at all what I mean when I say ought.

 

[creativesoul]

creative wrote:

How does this establish that truth exists outside of language? You'll have to do better than this.

I showed that line. Show me a truth, of any kind, which exists outside of being a property of a proposition.

Ozy wrote:

You seem to be working under a very different definition of truth. To me it is simple, a true proposition = a fact. There can be no distinguishing the two. By your own definition "A fact would be information which necessarily has a basis in objective reality(actuality). Facts must correspond to actuality. "

No argument here. A true proposition is a fact.

Example True Propositions: Mass is drawn towards Mass. Space and Time are linked. 1-1=0. My face absorbs and reflects photons of different wavelengths. Etc Etc. I could go on listing true propositions for hours, but what's the point? Not even sure what you think you are saying. These are all True propositions, and they can be tested and independently verified. They are properties of the reality that we find ourselves in, and their truth has nothing to do with the language I use to convey them.

My friend you're confusing the names of things with the things, in and of themselves.

Propositions acquire the property of being true(facts), because they accurately correspond to objective reality. That correlation to observation determines whether or not a proposition is true. It requires a proposition(language) and a description of observation(language) in order to even be able to be determined. If you remove language, you necessarily remove the ability for that determination.

 

[creativesoul]

obsidian wrote:

if we begin with the assumption that everyone wants to be valued it seems to follow that our duty would be to value them...

perhaps a better assumption (one that we make anyways) is that everyone has a mind as i do. from that you can get that people ought not to be treated in certain ways that are odious to people with minds.

edit: obviously not me personally, but *i* as in the individual agent in question.

I think I agree with the above, yet 'the duty' would be more like a duty to recognize and build value based upon the most basic commonalities shared between humans. People deserve to hold the value of being a human simply because they are. One does not need to earn that kind of value any more than one earns being born. The subjective nature of moral values need not be a measuring apparatus for that. Remove all moral standards and the foundation will not be a house of cards. Can that be done?

 

[Nogre]

Propositions acquire the property of being true(facts), because they accurately correspond to objective reality. That correlation to observation determines whether or not a proposition is true. It requires a proposition(language) and a description of observation(language) in order to even be able to be determined. If you remove language, you necessarily remove the ability for that determination.

I think there's some confusion here over definitions more than anything else. What Ozymandyus is talking about as truth is essentially the same thing as what you call actuality. Sure, there's truth or, probably more properly, truthfulness as a property of a proposition. But to me, there's the truth of a proposition, which is what you're calling truth, and the truth, period, which is essentially the same thing as what you call actuality.

And on the other line of argumentation, I fully agree with Ozy about "ought" being truly an overriding want that's a result of every desire a person has. If morality is how we define how we ought to act, then noone truly acts imorally in their own eyes. We've just been trained to set "ought," morality, and ethics up as an aspect of our wants, rather than being the whole of how we decide what we do. But in reality, every decision you make is based on decisions in how you ought to act, and while you may later change your mind and others may disagree, you'll always act according to the criterion you deem the best.

So striving to make that criterion as logically sound as possible should be the goal of ethical philosophy. And spreading that answer, of course. It shouldn't be setting up abstract ideals that fail to hold water in the real world. Several of the propositions within this thread seem very interesting as starting ground for ethics... We need more discussion about those and which one should be the beginning. Then we should be able to work out what comes from that beginning.

 

[creativesoul]

creative wrote:

How does that refute the claim that someone can want something that they believe is wrong? You just bolstered that claim as far as I can tell.

The sense of ought does not establish all personal wants/desires.

Ozy wrote:

I was refuting your use of the word of WANT vs OUGHT. They are the SAME thing. What you Ought to do IS what you Want to do. It isn't possible, therefore, to want something that you believe is 'wrong' - because what you believe is wrong IS simple another way of saying you believe you DO NOT WANT IT. Someone that 'wants' to do something wrong is simply forgetting what they actually want, misjudging the effects of their actions or their true Ought is that occasionally, in certain situations, they should partake in looking at porn in moderation.

Your equivocating here.

What one believes that they ought to do is always necessarily measured by - or correlated to - that which is learned to be right and wrong. Personal wants/desires are not necessarily learned. The two are not necessarily the same thing. Ought often measures the decision to act upon personal desire. Desire is not the sense of ought. Ought can reflect/justify one's desire.