Are we fooling ourselves with morals?

[Korlok]

Now it's becoming obvious why I made the comment I did. He does this on numerous threads, check the post history. I always reply with the same

I realize this now. He's been trying to bait me in a couple different threads today, so I just strung him along.
Although it was INCREDIBLY entertaining for a bit.

[urasim]

Just because something is incorrect doesn't make it personal. Yes, the human mind can be illogical at times, so it makes sense that you might view subjective morality as true under the proper circumstances.

How can morals be objective when they vary from person to person? Do you not know what objective and subjective mean?

[spinner981]

This isn't even a proof, much less a good plausibility argument. For one, quantum physics provides a whole wealth of examples where you not only can't know the answer, there isn't an answer.

Example: An electron spin before you measure it. Spin is either up or down. So you might ask, is the spin up or down? The answer is that there is no answer, the question itself is false. This is an example where there is no true or false, A or B. The very process of trying to assign a spin to it before it has been measured will lead to a contradiction with observed reality.

So that's my objection to basing your argument on the observed universe. And here's my argument from the logic angle: There are valid, completely self consistent logic systems which throw away the law of excluded middle. Before you try and argue that they have to be contradictory or inconsistent, realize that to do so you must play by the rules of that logic system. You can't insert the law of excluded middle and then find a contradiction.

There is no such thing as a false question, or a true question for that matter. Questions do not claim correctness, but rather seek it. Furthermore, just because something isn't currently observable doesn't mean there is no reason or cause to it. Third, there is a difference between a current lack of an answer and an answer that is neither true nor false, or vice versa.

I don't have much interest in a 'logic' system that throws rules out a window to the point where nothing is explainable due to the lack of rules necessary to explain things. Do these systems of logic also believe that A = not A?

Now it's becoming obvious why I made the comment I did. He does this on numerous threads, check the post history. I always reply with the same

Yes, you like calling names. Meanwhile anyone who tries to tell me I am wrong can literally only do that; they say "No, you're wrong."

Granted, there are exceptions like Garnier up there that try and propose an answer, and their posts are much more preferable than somebody like you simply writing off what I say by referring to it as some sort of biased label. Just because you don't personally agree with something doesn't make it 'bullshit' and just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it contrary to intellectualism.

- - - Updated - - -

How can morals be objective when they vary from person to person? Do you not know what objective and subjective mean?

Except they don't vary from person to person. What? Would you expect yourself to honor the opinion of a person who believes that rape and murder are morally acceptable? If not, then you are acting contrary to your very worldview that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective, then that guy is just as correct as you are, and you should believe that systems of law are oppressive to people who people that rape and murder are legally acceptable. From your claim we would conclude that evil does not exist, that justice does not exist, that harm, suffering and goodness do not exist.

[Felya]

In Cowboys versus Indians, who is the immoral character?

[MerinPally]

Yes, you like calling names. Meanwhile anyone who tries to tell me I am wrong can literally only do that; they say "No, you're wrong."

Rather, I'm simply prepared to point out you talk utter bollocks. You string these words together feigning higher meaning but what you fail to realise is that they don't mean shit. That is called "pseudo intellectualism" and it's painful.

If you've got something to say, then say it. This dancing around and muddying the waters doesn't make you look smart to anyone who can cut through it, but rather someone who doesn't know what they're on about.

[Korlok]

Rather, I'm simply prepared to point out you talk utter bollocks. You string these words together feigning higher meaning but what you fail to realise is that they don't mean shit. That is called "pseudo intellectualism" and it's painful.

If you've got something to say, then say it. This dancing around and muddying the waters doesn't make you look smart to anyone who can cut through it, but rather someone who doesn't know what they're on about.

He's so articulate though!! Don't burst his bubble. I really am entertained by his.... opinions.

[Garnier Fructis]

There is no such thing as a false question, or a true question for that matter. Questions do not claim correctness, but rather seek it. Furthermore, just because something isn't currently observable doesn't mean there is no reason or cause to it. Third, there is a difference between a current lack of an answer and an answer that is neither true nor false, or vice versa.

By 'false' question I mean a question that doesn't make sense to ask. In the case of the electron spin, the answer is neither true nor false. You're correct in that this isn't the same as lacking an answer. Because the instant you assume that it has an answer at all, you arrive at contradiction in the form of Bell's inequalities. Quantum physics is rife with situations in which there simply isn't a black or white, but just gray.

[notorious98]

Wasn't the 50% stat proved to be disingenuous, in that they took a snapshot of one year in which there were twice as many marriages as there were divorces, and extrapolated from that that 50% of all marriages end in divorce?

Divorce numbers have also been on the decline.

Also, it fails to take into account first marriages vs. multiple marriages. Statistics have shown that you're more likely to get divorced if you've already been divorced. So the number of first time marriages ending in divorce is likely lower. This, of course, is all probably based off of disingenuous stats.

- - - Updated - - -

Except they don't vary from person to person. What? Would you expect yourself to honor the opinion of a person who believes that rape and murder are morally acceptable? If not, then you are acting contrary to your very worldview that morality is subjective. If morality is subjective, then that guy is just as correct as you are, and you should believe that systems of law are oppressive to people who people that rape and murder are legally acceptable. From your claim we would conclude that evil does not exist, that justice does not exist, that harm, suffering and goodness do not exist.

Just because we would consider some morals to be universal doesn't mean that all morals are. For example, people in the United States feel that it's morally wrong to use dogs for fighting or food. On the other hand, someone from another society believes that dogs are there for their enjoyment because they're just animals. PETA has a different set of morals than myself. Cannibals have a different set of morals than we do. Does it mean they are animals whose opinions we should disregard just because? We considered Pablo Escobar to be a morally bankrupt individual, but the poor people in Colombia would have wholeheartedly disagreed. For the most part, morality is entirely subjective to your time and the space you occupy.

[spinner981]

Rather, I'm simply prepared to point out you talk utter bollocks. You string these words together feigning higher meaning but what you fail to realise is that they don't mean shit. That is called "pseudo intellectualism" and it's painful.

If you've got something to say, then say it. This dancing around and muddying the waters doesn't make you look smart to anyone who can cut through it, but rather someone who doesn't know what they're on about.

Did I miss the part where somebody refuted my statements? Where somebody explained why they are illogical and wrong? Or are you just acting like somebody did? What part of what I am saying is merely 'dancing around' the subject, and what subject would that be?

By 'false' question I mean a question that doesn't make sense to ask. In the case of the electron spin, the answer is neither true nor false. You're correct in that this isn't the same as lacking an answer. Because the instant you assume that it has an answer at all, you arrive at contradiction in the form of Bell's inequalities. Quantum physics is rife with situations in which there simply isn't a black or white, but just gray.

Paradoxes also don't make sense, yet logic still functions. The answer of "We don't know yet." is merely a reflection of our lack of knowledge. But just because we don't know whether something is true or false doesn't mean it isn't true or false.

[Korlok]

Did I miss the part where somebody refuted my statements? Where somebody explained why they are illogical and wrong? Or are you just acting like somebody did? What part of what I am saying is merely 'dancing around' the subject, and what subject would that be?



Paradoxes also don't make sense, yet logic still functions. The answer of "We don't know yet." is merely a reflection of our lack of knowledge. But just because we don't know whether something is true or false doesn't mean it isn't true or false.

The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence!!
Now where have I heard that before?

[spinner981]

Just because we would consider some morals to be universal doesn't mean that all morals are. For example, people in the United States feel that it's morally wrong to use dogs for fighting or food. On the other hand, someone from another society believes that dogs are there for their enjoyment because they're just animals. PETA has a different set of morals than myself. Cannibals have a different set of morals than we do. Does it mean they are animals whose opinions we should disregard just because? We considered Pablo Escobar to be a morally bankrupt individual, but the poor people in Colombia would have wholeheartedly disagreed. For the most part, morality is entirely subjective to your time and the space you occupy.

So, the only morals that aren't universal are the ones you personally believe not to be? That's awfully convenient.

[Deleted]

Morals and empathy is what separates us from animals.

Eh no, many animals are empathic...

[spinner981]

The absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence!!
Now where have I heard that before?

Not from me, cuz I've never heard it before. Although there is truth to it. But I don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.

[Korlok]

Not from me, cuz I've never heard it before. Although there is truth to it. But I don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.

Suuuuure you don't. But you know, it's pretty obvious you don't 'see' anything that anyone is presenting to you.
I blame your severe lack of humor.

[Garnier Fructis]

Paradoxes also don't make sense, yet logic still functions. The answer of "We don't know yet." is merely a reflection of our lack of knowledge. But just because we don't know whether something is true or false doesn't mean it isn't true or false.

What I'm trying to get at is that you can't say that it's true or false that the electron is in spin up. That's the very essence of Bell's inequalities: that assuming the question has an answer at all leads to results that don't match reality. It's not a matter of ignorance; it's a fundamental aspect of reality.

[spinner981]

Suuuuure you don't. But you know, it's pretty obvious you don't 'see' anything that anyone is presenting to you.
I blame your severe lack of humor.

Well if people are going to be so cryptic then you can't really blame me.

What I'm trying to get at is that you can't say that it's true or false that the electron is in spin up. That's the very essence of Bell's inequalities: that assuming the question has an answer at all leads to results that don't match reality. It's not a matter of ignorance; it's a fundamental aspect of reality.

How does the assumption of an answer lead to results? We can simply know there is an answer. Assuming/guessing/calculating the answer is something different. The very fact that there are results that do occur in reality are what I refer to here. Perhaps we can't accurately predict the effect of every cause, but that doesn't mean that there is no cause or effect.

[Betelgeuse]

Morals are subjective, in the eyes of the chimps they might well be moral to each other. What is considered morally right varies even in humans and does even today across continents, let alone over the course of history. You don't even have to go far back in history, not even 100 years, to see some huge differences.

With regards to empathy, elephants, apes, rats and a few species of bird would like a word. Amongst many others.

If that's what separates us, then nothing separates us.

Two thumbs up. The ability to understand what morality is, is as varied as those who "practice" it. Maybe the ability to recognize morality in different forms is what makes us "superior" to the animal kingdom; and superior to the majority of humans who can not see past their own experience.

[spinner981]

Two thumbs up. The ability to understand what morality is, is as varied as those who "practice" it. Maybe the ability to recognize morality in different forms is what makes us "superior" to the animal kingdom; and superior to the majority of humans who can not see past their own experience.

It is exactly experience that leads to the false notion that morals are subjective. It is seeing past mere experience that allows us to consider the possibility of morals beyond our own personal opinion of what morals should be. Seeing beyond experience should make us ponder a universal morality, not work backwards and merely conclude that all moral beliefs are equally right and therefore equally wrong.

[Garnier Fructis]

How does the assumption of an answer lead to results? We can simply know there is an answer. Assuming/guessing/calculating the answer is something different. The very fact that there are results that do occur in reality are what I refer to here. Perhaps we can't accurately predict the effect of every cause, but that doesn't mean that there is no cause or effect.

It's not about guessing or calculating the answer, and it isn't about cause or effect. The 'cause' is measurement, and the 'effect' is that it now has a spin. I'm talking about what's going on before you measure it.

If we know it has an answer, then it is either up (U) or down (D). Now consider 3 of them. You have 8 possibilities:
UUU, UUD, UDU, DUU, UDD, DUD, DDU, DDD.

Each of these has it's own probability, and all the probabilities add up to 1 (because you're guaranteed to get one of these 8 possibilities). So consider the probabilities that two of them have the same spin.

Prob(1, 2): Prob(UUU) + Prob(UUD) + Prob(DDU) + Prob(DDD)
Prob(1, 3): Prob(UUU) + Prob(UDU) + Prob(DUD) + Prob(DDD)
Prob(2, 3): Prob(UUU) + Prob(DUU) + Prob(UDD) + Prob(DDD)

If you add all of these together, you get that Prob(1, 2) + Prob(1, 3) + Prob (2, 3) = 1 + 2 P(UUU) + 2 P(DDD) >= 1.

So if you look at this number experimentally you expect a quantity greater than or equal to one. But what you'll find instead if you do this experiment is that this quantity P(1, 2) + P(1, 3) + P(2, 3) is 3/4, which is much less than 1. I left out a lot of the context and finer details but the essence of these inequalities is that all experiments to date on Bell's inequalities agree with Quantum Mechanics and disagree with classical mechanics, a.k.a. knowing that it even has an answer.

[spinner981]

It's not about guessing or calculating the answer, and it isn't about cause or effect. The 'cause' is measurement, and the 'effect' is that it now has a spin. I'm talking about what's going on before you measure it.

If we know it has an answer, then it is either up (U) or down (D). Now consider 3 of them. You have 8 possibilities:
UUU, UUD, UDU, DUU, UDD, DUD, DDU, DDD.

Each of these has it's own probability, and all the probabilities add up to 1 (because you're guaranteed to get one of these 8 possibilities). So consider the probabilities that two of them have the same spin.

Prob(1, 2): Prob(UUU) + Prob(UUD) + Prob(DDU) + Prob(DDD)
Prob(1, 3): Prob(UUU) + Prob(UDU) + Prob(DUD) + Prob(DDD)
Prob(2, 3): Prob(UUU) + Prob(DUU) + Prob(UDD) + Prob(DDD)

If you add all of these together, you get that Prob(1, 2) + Prob(1, 3) + Prob (2, 3) = 1 + 2 P(UUU) + 2 P(DDD) >= 1.

So if you look at this number experimentally you expect a quantity greater than or equal to one. But what you'll find instead if you do this experiment is that this quantity P(1, 2) + P(1, 3) + P(2, 3) is 3/4, which is much less than 1. I left out a lot of the context and finer details but the essence of these inequalities is that all experiments to date on Bell's inequalities agree with Quantum Mechanics and disagree with classical mechanics, a.k.a. knowing that it even has an answer.

I'm not a quantum physicist I assure you, but truth is much simpler than what you are making it out to be. Truth is simply what happens, whether it makes sense or not, whether we understand it or not. Similarly, not all answers necessarily agree with that which we have established as scientific fact in this universe. The shortcomings of our knowledge and understanding is not evidence that something can also be something that it isn't under the same circumstances.