Two Million Australians live Below the Poverty Line (2 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Now how would these two people decide which decision is correct? Whatever this standard is, that's where the 'absolute realm of truth' lies (or as dhj put it earlier, the big old book of morality). The alternative is "might makes right", which I'm pretty sure you guys don't agree with.

...

Now its possible to have a personal preference for things but that doesn't necessarily say anything useful or solve anything. I'm perfectly entitled to the opinion that rocks fall upwards, but I'd be wrong to say it, and I consider this in much the same way that I'd think if someone said that theft is ok. So yes we do have our own feelings about what is right and wrong, but ultimately this isn't the sole determinant of what is right and wrong. For our personal opinions and preferences to become actual moral rules/principles, they need to be subjected to the scientific method.

You ask: "how would these two people decide which decision is correct?" The point I am pushing is that there does not exist a way to decide whether a moral belief is correct. In fact, my claims are stronger than this. I do not simply believe that we 'just happen' to lack a decision procedure, but rather that such a decision procedure is impossible in principle because a moral belief is not the kind of thing that can be (objectively) true or false. The scientific method deals with theorems of logic and observables. As far as I can tell there are no moral statements that are implied by any logical truths or observable facts (if you can demonstrate otherwise, please do). In other words, what I am holding is that your belief that "stealing is wrong" is like a person's belief that "Beethoven's 7th is beautiful" or that "beards are unnatractive". They are preferences - mere matters of opinion - and are not the kind of thing which can be true or false in an objective sense.

At present I'm not sure how you can justify your assertion that moral claims admit of scientific treatment.

Bit of a random question (to either KFunk or dhj, or whoever is still following the thread):
When you say that "morality is subjective or relative to oneself" - would you say this statement is objectively true?

Yes, simply put. There are ways to complicate this answer, but none which are particularly important to the present debate. It is important to note that "morality is subjective" is not itself a moral claim, and so does not fall prey to its own assertion. It is an ontological claim, in that it is a claim about what exists (i.e. I am claiming that no moral facts exist).

One could make a similar claim about 'beauty statements' and example of which could be 'Jennifer Hawkins is beautiful'. My belief is that no such claims are true in any objective sense, and in stating this I do not make a beauty statement.

 

[KFunk]

1. Getting aroused by some hot chick is an involuntary reaction. Morality deals with situations where you have a choice to do something. If you didn't have the opportunity to NOT do something, how can you be immoral for doing it? I don't think your analogy is a 'choice', let alone a moral choice.

I think there's a difference between one person finding a woman attractive and this woman actually being objectively attractive.

I agree with your last statement, and I think that the same holds of morality. Essentially I was parodying the reasoning which says that "If a preference leads to some event which is objective and measureable, then the preference itself is objectively true" --> an argument which I feel is false.

Fair call on the issue of choice - I conceed that this difference could lead to different logical treatment. However, we can simply revert to a different example. Take your idea of ice-cream preferences. You can tell the same kind of story where a person's preference for vanilla ice cream over all other flavours leads them to purchase vanilla ice cream (in a situation where they desire ice cream). That the there exists an objective fact that the individual bought a vanilla icre cream does not imply that "vanilla ice cream is preferable to all other flavours" is an objective fact. This example eliminates the choice issue.

 

[KFunk]

It can downgrade a statement from a 'moral theory' to mere personal opinion by subjecting it to the scientific method.

If for example a theory turns out to be logically inconsistent, then this theory could never be held to be valid. Therefore if someone still holds this belief, that person is only able to hold it as a personal preference, and not as something that is 'fact' if you know what I mean.

Think of it like disproving a scientific theory if that helps.

I geuss part of my issue is that I am still not convinced that moral theories admit of scientific treatment, largely because I don't think you have established that objective moral facts exist (as above).

I certainly think that this approach is useful in delineating useful or workable systems of morality --> given that, ideally, we want to minimize the set of actions deemed both 'right and wrong' or 'permissible and impermissible' by a moral theory. Any such major contradictions (I would be impressed if you could eliminate all contradictions) provide a good practical reason for rejecting a moral reason, but do not thus render a theory false (in any objective sense).

 

[_dhj_]

The statement that 'stealing is morally wrong', from our ordinary understanding of morality, is I think quite acceptable. When you use the acceptability of the statement, the obviousness and naturalness of the statement and its virtually universal acceptance as proof of its objectivity, as proof of the moral wrongness of stealing, you have not actually derived the 'objective' meaning of stealing. I think most people, or at least the significant proportion of people in society would not accept the proposition that taxation is stealing. Because of this fact, you sought to rely on the 'consistency' in the meaning of stealing. But you can't take assert consistency and at the same time turn a blind eye on universality. That is, in using the universality of the proposition that stealing is wrong, you can't ignore the absence of universal consensus that taxation is wrong. If taxation is stealing, the mere use of the term 'taxation' should not confuse the morality of the action.

To bridge the gap in the 'meaning' of stealing, you sought to rely on consistency. But words cannot be exactly defined by other words - such being the complex nature of language. For example, you may argue that stealing is the taking away of property from others. But it may be closer to the truth that stealing is the wrongful taking away of property from others without consent and in a fraudulent manner (this is not a legal definition, just an alternative definition). Taxation, being not regarded as wrongful in the eyes of the community, would not fall under this definition. It seems to me that the latter is closer to the truth, but it is still not an exact definition of stealing. The exact definition is indescribable. At best we can say that some actions are regarded as stealing, and other actions, such as taxation, are not.

 

[volition]

As far as I can tell there are no moral statements that are implied by any logical truths or observable facts (if you can demonstrate otherwise, please do).

If you mean to say that moral rules don't exist in the physical world, then yeah I agree. There's nothing about the shape of trees in a forest that tell us "murder is wrong". The scientific method doesn’t exist in the real world either, neither do logic or numbers (we can represent them in the real world, but the concept doesn’t exist in the real world). Does that mean to say that they are subjective? Of course not. Moral theories must still pass the test of logical consistency, just like scientific or mathematic theories.

At present I'm not sure how you can justify your assertion that moral claims admit of scientific treatment.

This is how I think it goes:
If you seek truth, it is Universally Preferable to apply the scientific method (the scientific method is objective). If you seek truth, to do otherwise would be wrong.

Oh yeah one other thing I want to note: Try thinking about the P in UPB as "preferable" rather than "preferred". It's supposed to be prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Yes, simply put. There are ways to complicate this answer, but none which are particularly important to the present debate. It is important to note that "morality is subjective" is not itself a moral claim, and so does not fall prey to its own assertion. It is an ontological claim, in that it is a claim about what exists (i.e. I am claiming that no moral facts exist).

Yeah ok I don’t think it really even has to be that no ‘moral claim’ is objectively true, I think this is more about whether things in general can be objectively true.

“It is objectively true that no standards exist” - Is this statement your opinion or is it objectively true?

Once you’ve answered this, I need to ask you, “What criteria have you used to separate mere opinion from objective truth?” in order to say “it is objectively true that no standards exist”.

If you answer reason (the only real way to separate opinion from truth), well then…. Is reason the objective standard by which you have determined that no objective standards exist?

But I suppose you could just say you’ve used personal preference as the criterion… but in that case I shouldn’t continue “debating” against your opinion, because that would be contradictory.

Fair call on the issue of choice - I conceed that this difference could lead to different logical treatment. However, we can simply revert to a different example. Take your idea of ice-cream preferences. You can tell the same kind of story where a person's preference for vanilla ice cream over all other flavours leads them to purchase vanilla ice cream (in a situation where they desire ice cream). That the there exists an objective fact that the individual bought a vanilla icre cream does not imply that "vanilla ice cream is preferable to all other flavours" is an objective fact. This example eliminates the choice issue.

Even when you remove the ‘choice’ factor the difference is when we’re talking about morality we have to talk about universally applying principles. Like when a scientist makes a theory of gravity, it has to apply to all matter, not just “pink rocks” for example. Since his theory involves gravity, it must apply to all entities that have mass. If it is a theory of gravity, then it must apply to everything. If it only applies to pink rocks, then it is not a theory of gravity.

In sort of the same way with moral theories, they have to be universal. A theory about icecreams couldn't be universal because the moral proposition is too specific to be generalised, if that makes sense.

I know the stuff above sounds heaps abstract, but I don’t really know how else to explain this.

To bridge the gap in the 'meaning' of stealing, you sought to rely on consistency. But words cannot be exactly defined by other words - such being the complex nature of language. For example, you may argue that stealing is the taking away of property from others. But it may be closer to the truth that stealing is the wrongful taking away of property from others without consent and in a fraudulent manner (this is not a legal definition, just an alternative definition). Taxation, being not regarded as wrongful in the eyes of the community, would not fall under this definition. It seems to me that the latter is closer to the truth, but it is still not an exact definition of stealing. The exact definition is indescribable. At best we can say that some actions are regarded as stealing, and other actions, such as taxation, are not.

Ok well let’s set aside the definition of stealing and taxation for now. Let’s look using consistency, using whatever definition of “tax” you like…

How is it that you justify that “the people who claim to be the govt" (remember there is no such thing as the govt) are allowed to “tax” other people? And why can’t Jane Citizen go and “tax” people by this same justification?

Or is it just that you don’t believe in the universality of principles? Do you truly believe it could theoretically be wrong to murder on Monday, but alright on Sunday afternoons at 3 o’clock? Did slavery only become wrong when people realised, or was it always wrong? Or maybe murder (or killing or however you want to ‘define it’) is ok in Iraq but not ok over here in Australia? Or perhaps you believe that we have two different classes of human, one who is allowed to “tax” and one who is not? Or maybe one class of human who is allowed to kill Iraqis and one who isn't?

Or if its the case that you think none of this is objectively moral or immoral like KFunk, then I refer you to the paragraph above about the statement "it is objectively true that no objective standards exist".

 

[KFunk]

If you mean to say that moral rules don't exist in the physical world, then yeah I agree. There's nothing about the shape of trees in a forest that tell us "murder is wrong". The scientific method doesn’t exist in the real world either, neither do logic or numbers (we can represent them in the real world, but the concept doesn’t exist in the real world). Does that mean to say that they are subjective? Of course not. Moral theories must still pass the test of logical consistency, just like scientific or mathematic theories.

If you seek truth, it is Universally Preferable to apply the scientific method (the scientific method is objective). If you seek truth, to do otherwise would be wrong.

We have to main tools, roughly speaking, that we use to determine objective truth: logic and the scientific method. Molyneux characterises the requirements of a scientific theory as follows:

"...any valid scientific theory must be (a) universal, (b) logical, (c) empirically verifiable, (d) reproducible and (e) as simple as possible."

If no structure or empirical fact about our world is able to tell us that "murder is wrong", to use your example, then moral claims are not empirically verifiable and so do not admit of scientific treatment. If you can't manage empirical verification then I don't understand why you want to apply the scientific method to morality. Either you can find validation for moral claims in empirical findings (or logic), or you cannot. If you cannot then I think your desire for objective morality is in trouble (unless you can find some new means of detecting/demonstrating objective truth). In short, if you want to claim that an objectively true moral theory exists then you need to:

(1) Demonstrate that such a theory is a logical truth

or

(2) Find empirical verification for your theory

... unsuprisingly, I am highly skeptical of either possibility.

“It is objectively true that no standards exist” - Is this statement your opinion or is it objectively true?

Once you’ve answered this, I need to ask you, “What criteria have you used to separate mere opinion from objective truth?” in order to say “it is objectively true that no standards exist”.

I should make more clear what I was trying to say. Certainly, I believe that no objective moral truths exist. However, the point I was trying to get across was:

The statement "no objective moral truths exist" is the kind of statement that can be objectively true, even if it is the case that moral claims are not. In other words, issues with the nature of objectivity or self-defeating statements don't really arise when claiming that 'morality is subjective'.

 

[_dhj_]

How is it that you justify that “the people who claim to be the govt" (remember there is no such thing as the govt) are allowed to “tax” other people? And why can’t Jane Citizen go and “tax” people by this same justification?

I take your 'there is no such ting as the govt' statement as to mean there is no actual individual who is 'the government', since if there is literally 'no such thing as the govt' there would be no need for you to advocate for its abolishment. If there is such a distinction - if the government is not an individual, there is no inconsistency with any hypothetical moral rule that 'no individual can take property away from another without the owner's consent, for the benefit of the individual' or whatever.

As for Jane Citizen, she is in the same position as Jill Citizen the tax collector. That is, Jane can tax people provided that she acts for the government in the professional position as tax collector and provided that she does not take the money for herself. In that respect her legal position is the same as Jill Citizen. Then you may ask 'what is the difference between an individual and the government' - but you implicitly admitted that there is a difference by the statement that 'there is no govt' - which can only mean that the government is a special entity - not an individual or even a group of individuals. It is not a case whereby tax officers are themselves 'the government' and takes the money and puts it directly in there pockets - they take it for the functioning of the govt, and so that the govt can enact policy and maintain the legal system to protect your property rights. The legal system comes down hard on corrupt tax collectors that take the money for themselves. There have been lengthy jail sentences handed down this year for such activities.

Or is it just that you don’t believe in the universality of principles? Do you truly believe it could theoretically be wrong to murder on Monday, but alright on Sunday afternoons at 3 o’clock? Did slavery only become wrong when people realised, or was it always wrong? Or maybe murder (or killing or however you want to ‘define it’) is ok in Iraq but not ok over here in Australia? Or perhaps you believe that we have two different classes of human, one who is allowed to “tax” and one who is not? Or maybe one class of human who is allowed to kill Iraqis and one who isn't?

Society and principles are more complex that you make them out to be. Qualifications and exceptions are part of principles. There is no principle for any assertion that they are not, since your universal 'principles' already have some form of qualification - i.e. if stealing has a 'definition', its definition is closer to 'taking away someone's property' rather than simply 'taking away' - that is already a qualification, there is no principle to preclude the existence of other qualifications.

You may not agree with military action against Iraq, but what if say, the Indonesians invaded Australia - would the Australian military be justified in killing Indonesian soldiers? What if we sent troops to a country whose government inflicted genocide? Of course, one argument is that the killing is an evil which prevents a greater evil - it being a necessity. But essentially these scenarios demonstrate that either 'one should not kill' has qualifications and exceptions, or that killing is justified for preventing a greater evil. If you take the latter stance, taxation is analogous. The hypothetical 'evil' of taxation is justified for it prevents the greater evil of chaos and disorder, inequality and poverty, and of course the potential disintegration of your precious "property rights".

 

[volition]

If no structure or empirical fact about our world is able to tell us that "murder is wrong", to use your example, then moral claims are not empirically verifiable and so do not admit of scientific treatment.

Try a thought experiment. Put two men in a room, and try playing out the proposition "murder is good" - what happens?

I should make more clear what I was trying to say. Certainly, I believe that no objective moral truths exist. However, the point I was trying to get across was:
The statement "no objective moral truths exist" is the kind of statement that can be objectively true, even if it is the case that moral claims are not.

If you present it as a personal belief: I'm not going to bother continuing arguing against a personal preference. If it just your personal opinion, then ok, I'd just like to also say that its my personal opinion that rocks fall upwards

If you are trying to present it as fact: That statement is a UPB statement, in that it indicates a universal preference for truth over falsehood, and we're back to ethics.

Anyway, I think what you were referring to was the ought/is dichotomy, but Molyneux's UPB doesn't violate that. It only speaks of what is preferable in a prescriptive sense, rather than trying to observe something in the world (an 'is') and then derive an 'ought' from it.

I take your 'there is no such ting as the govt' statement as to mean there is no actual individual who is 'the government', since if there is literally 'no such thing as the govt' there would be no need for you to advocate for its abolishment. If there is such a distinction - if the government is not an individual, there is no inconsistency with any hypothetical moral rule that 'no individual can take property away from another without the owner's consent, for the benefit of the individual' or whatever.

Let me go through it again:

1. The govt is a concept, it can only act through what people do.
2. Morally, all human individuals are equal.
3. The govt should not be able to do anything more than what an individual person can do.

Essentially what the above is saying: The fact that you are a group does not mean you are allowed to do more stuff. There's no separate set of rules for what a group is allowed to do.

As for Jane Citizen...

In a way what you're doing is just describing what the effect is, not the actual moral rule itself.

It could never be a moral rule that "as long as you are employed by the govt that has been democratically voted in and between the hours of 9 to 5 you are allowed to take other people's money as dicated by the terms of the govt". It'd just be making stuff up! Such a statement wouldn't be a universal moral principle, this statement could only be personal preference at best.

Being in the 'professional position' of tax collector does not alter your moral nature. Putting on a green costume does not suddenly mean you can go and murder.

Society and principles are more complex that you make them out to be. Qualifications and exceptions are part of principles. There is no principle for any assertion that they are not, since your universal 'principles' already have some form of qualification - i.e. if stealing has a 'definition', its definition is closer to 'taking away someone's property' rather than simply 'taking away' - that is already a qualification, there is no principle to preclude the existence of other qualifications.

With this whole definition thing, usually 'thou shalt not' rules make a lot more sense than 'thou shalt'. Freedom from works, but not really freedom to.

I think it goes a little more like "you have the freedom from having your property rights infringed upon". Self-defence is ok, its only the initation of violence that is generally evil. If you have to use violence to defend yourself against violence, then violence is permissible.

That doesn't say that there are no grey areas. Grey areas do exist (like at what age does a child become old enough to realise that what they are doing is wrong) and so on, but worrying about these minor issues when we have bigger issues (like govt threats of violence against individuals) at stake here is perhaps a little misguided. It'd be like being a doctor in a health crisis worrying about some guy who's got a tiny little scratch on his arm instead of worrying about the guy who's just lost a limb.

The hypothetical 'evil' of taxation is justified for it prevents the greater evil of chaos and disorder, inequality and poverty, and of course the potential disintegration of your precious "property rights".

This statement is self-contradictory. How can taxation (taking away property rights), be protecting property rights at the same time?

As for the stuff about 'greater evil', we've been through this, so maybe this is a statement of personal preference rather than one of fact.

 

[KFunk]

Try a thought experiment. Put two men in a room, and try playing out the proposition "murder is good" - what happens?

It depends on their individual subjective preferences. What of it?

If you present it as a personal belief: I'm not going to bother continuing arguing against a personal preference. If it just your personal opinion, then ok, I'd just like to also say that its my personal opinion that rocks fall upwards

If you are trying to present it as fact: That statement is a UPB statement, in that it indicates a universal preference for truth over falsehood, and we're back to ethics.

Anyway, I think what you were referring to was the ought/is dichotomy, but Molyneux's UPB doesn't violate that. It only speaks of what is preferable in a prescriptive sense, rather than trying to observe something in the world (an 'is') and then derive an 'ought' from it.

First off, the point is not what I believe. Yes, I could make an argument against the existence of moral facts but thus far I have chosen not to do so. All I claimed above was that it is perfectly consistent to say that 'there are no objective moral truths' on the grounds that such a statement is not a prescriptive moral statement. The important point is that you have not, thus far, managed to exclude this as a logical possibility.

Prescriptive statements are ought statements, and precisely what Molyneux does is derrive and 'ought' from an 'is'. I simply don't understand how my personal preferences regarding truth prevents the non-existence of moral facts. At best, what is shown is that I seek truth on some matters, not that I endorse any kind of objective morality.

 

[eppingMCE]

Biggest load of shit mate, it is True that Australia is one of the richest country in the world, but this is not a world poverty line (to get over world poverty line is to make more than 1dollar us a day) a poverty line can be set at any amount the media could have made up a poverty line with a requirement of having having 10 million dollars, thus most people will fail.

PS in this case the report only focuses on the wealthiest nations and the statistics comes mainly from homelessness, refugees and aboriginals. which can not be fixed with government hand outs or our donations but rather our compassion and empathy by trusting them and giving them a job, and letting them know they are valued citizens of our society. Everyone is a good person if only given the chance and oppitunity to do so. So dont let the media control and manipulate us with their illusions, the media only focues on what would get them a story!

 

[banco55]

Everyone is a good person if only given the chance and oppitunity to do so. So dont let the media control and manipulate us with their illusions, the media only focues on what would get them a story!

I fear you are in for a nasty shock in the future if you really believe that