David Osterfeld on natural rights

[adam_knott]

@AJ

My point above was simply that posters using the words objective and subjective could actually be in agreement, because the definitions of those two words are so malleable that one can nearly mean the other.

Oh. Sorry. I didn’t catch that. I interpreted it as implying that the meaning of the term objective was clearly understood by all concerned.

[Amanojack]

That’s OK. I think some of the issues you raised are why I find objective a problematic term in talking about morality. To give more of an idea why, here are a few possible interpretations that spring to mind:

1. Objective moral truth: A valid syllogism of the form “is → ought” (individual consequentialism) or “ought → ought” (persuasion to a person) for a given person/agent under discussion.

2. Objective moral truth: A valid syllogism of the form “is → ought” (universal consequentialism) or “ought → ought” (persuasion to a group), valid for all people.

3. Objective moral truth: An empirically established fact that provides insights into the consequences of human actions regardless of agent.

4. Objective moral truth: Something regarded as a situational “moral truth” by the majority, or everyone, or a certain class or group of people, possibly “authorities.”

5. Objective moral truth: Something regarded as a universal “moral truth” by the majority, or everyone, or a certain class or group of people, possibly “authorities.”

6. Objective moral truth: Something nonsensical, that people insist on calling “objective moral truth” while refusing to define which of the previous five interpretations - or another interpretation - they really mean. This one has the effect of making any statement about such an “objective moral truth” very hard to refute, because any and all refutations can be labeled strawmans.

There is of course some overlap, which makes things even messier, not to even mention that people mean different things by their oughts.

[twistedbydsign99]

@Juan

That’s not morality.

At that point you usually give a more accurate definition, so give it. My definition is morality is the way a man should act. So elaborate.

@Juan

Actually, the only important problem is whether ‘subjective’ ends, such as butchering your neighbor if you feel like it, are morally justified or not. Morality as far as I can tell is not concerned with food tastes or cooking, cooking being a metaphor for the utilitarian formula

Morality is not conerned with, but applies to cooking given my definition which I’m assuming you are going to refine. Notice that given my definition of morality it actually applies to itself. The selection of an end is an action. There is a manner we should select our goals, and murdering for fun should not be chosen. Of course the murder would believe he is acting morally, but he would be mistaken.

[twistedbydsign99]

@AJ

That’s OK. I think some of the issues you raised are why I find objective a problematic term in talking about morality. To give more of an idea why, here are a few possible interpretations that spring to mind:

When I use objective, I mean true now and forever for all people independant of anyones opinion on the subject. I guess that is 2.

[Juan]

@twistedbydsign99

Notice that given my definition of morality it actually applies to itself. The selection of an end is an action. There is a manner we should select our goals, and murdering for fun should not be chosen.

I see. Well I’ve no quarrel then. I originally objected to this…

Given a man and his goals the way he should act is completely objective.

…because, if one says nothing about the ends, then morality becomes just a practical recipe to achieve any arbitrary end. If, for instance, my end is to kill people without ever paying for my crimes, then an objectively expedient way to do that is to join the military. Of course, none of my actions as a soldier would be objectively, morally, good.

[Amanojack]

@twistedbydsign99

When I use objective, I mean true now and forever for all people independant of anyones opinion on the subject.

Under that definition, do you believe in “objective values”? And if so, would that mean something other than “things that everyone deems important now and forever”?

[twistedbydsign99]

@AJ

Under that definition, do you believe in “objective values”? And if so, would that mean something other than “things that everyone deems important now and forever”?

So the answer to the second question is it wouldn’t mean anything different. The first question, is there an objective set of goals all of humanity has that constrains them in some way, something like honesty, or preferring life over death. In an absolute sense no, but on average yes. The laws of nature and what it means to suceed in this world does give us on average a set of things we all believe. Logic over illogic, argument over physical fight, life over death, cooperation over isolation. Any man can choose to disobey any of these, which is why I said there is no absolute set, but he disobeys at his own peril, which is why on average we obey. The limit as time goes to infinity of the goals mankind will hold, includes these things

[adam_knott]

@twistedbydsign99

@AJ

Under that definition, do you believe in “objective values”? And if so, would that mean something other than “things that everyone deems important now and forever”?

So the answer to the second question is it wouldn’t mean anything different. The first question, is there an objective set of goals all of humanity has that constrains them in some way, something like honesty, or preferring life over death. In an absolute sense no, but on average yes. The laws of nature and what it means to suceed in this world does give us on average a set of things we all believe. Logic over illogic, argument over physical fight, life over death, cooperation over isolation. Any man can choose to disobey any of these, which is why I said there is no absolute set, but he disobeys at his own peril, which is why on average we obey. The limit as time goes to infinity of the goals mankind will hold, includes these things

twistedbydsign99:

Regarding your passage above, here is your starting point:

Part 1:

So the answer to the second question is it wouldn’t mean anything different. The first question, is there an objective set of goals all of humanity has that constrains them in some way, something like honesty, or preferring life over death. In an absolute sense no,…

Logic over illogic, argument over physical fight, life over death, cooperation over isolation. Any man can choose to disobey any of these, which is why I said there is no absolute set,…

Here is your theory of ethics, or theory of human ethical action:

Part 2:

The laws of nature and what it means to suceed in this world does give us on average a set of things we all believe…

there is no absolute set, but he disobeys at his own peril, which is why on average we obey. The limit as time goes to infinity of the goals mankind will hold, includes these things

Part 2 constitutes your thesis or theory. That is the part that I would want to see elaborated or explained further and rigorously in essay or book form.

Adam

[twistedbydsign99]

Yea I am in the process of trying to get this morass of thoughts into something that resembles a straight line of thought haha. I have two sticking points right now, first parasitism could be considered a success if success is defined as merely propogating dna so its something I’m trying to refine, and second even if I was to have something that resembles a proof of some objective set of values that is “preferred” it doesn’t answer the question that matters to me, of why. Long ellaborated on this, but the evolutionary answer is just kind of hollow, but it is an answer.

[Amanojack]

@twistedbydsign99

The laws of nature and what it means to suceed in this world does give us on average a set of things we all believe. Logic over illogic, argument over physical fight, life over death, cooperation over isolation. Any man can choose to disobey any of these, which is why I said there is no absolute set, but he disobeys at his own peril, which is why on average we obey.

Thanks for the clarification. Would you object at this being called a type of consequentialism?

[twistedbydsign99]

@AJ

Thanks for the clarification. Would you object at this being called a type of consequentialism?

No I wouldnt’t object, I would say I believe that good consequences specified over a long enough span of time come from acting properly and the converse is true as well. But there are sticking points for me in that parasites enjoy good consequences and is it true that planning longer term versus shorter term is actually rewarded more. And there is the deeper question of why is this the case.