A More Localized Version of the Argument From Morality

[Bradski]

But, if enough people are being selfless enough for the system to work without my cooperation, then why should I not lie, cheat, double-cross, murder, rape, and steal if I can get away with it and not harm the system enough that it loses its capability to provide me benefits? You cannot argue with that except to say “Because that’s just wrong!” Which, interestingly, places that moral truth “out there” and we have just arrived at it.

If you know that you could get away with it, you might buck the system. If there is no fear of retribution then anything, unfortunately goes. There are very many depressing examples that exhibit that exact point. Here’s one: independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-third-of-male-university-students-say-they-would-rape-a-woman-if-there-no-were-no-consequences-9978052.html

Let’s take all of those men and now ask if they would rape a woman if all their friends, family and colleagues knew the details. Forget any suggestion of punishment - my bet would be that all would avoid the sense of shame.

If you’re a psycopath, then forget it. But everyone else? We’re all wary of being thought a coward or a bully or lazy or mean. And those negative feelings are there in the same way as the feelings of altruism are there. So we do a lot to avoid being a person who is not trusted.

It won’t stop you beings a bad dude but so many of us do the right thing, generally speaking, that the system works. Just avoid situations where the rule of law is breaking down. We are risen apes, not fallen angels and quite often revert to what we were.

 

[PseuTonym]

The solution is “acidic” as opposed to the solution is “alkaline” can be decided by a litmus test - no opinion is involved.

Are there three kinds of statements: “IS” statements, “OUGHT” statements, and “CAN” statements?

no opinion is involved.

The sequence of words “no opinion is involved” seems to be somewhat idiomatic. If I say that in my opinion an enormous jar filled with jellybeans (visible to all who hear me) contains at least three jellybeans, then I imagine that some people might object. “That’s not an opinion,” they might say. So, is a statement not an opinion if the statement is true?

 

[o_mlly]

Let’s not confuse objective factual statements with moral propositions (which you would like to define as being absolute). …

So ‘stealing is wrong’, which is, as we keep pointing out, an absolute statement, doesn’t stand on its own. It needs qualification. It needs a relative clause. It needs an argument.

Properly defined, stealing is always and everywhere absolutely immoral.

Stealing: the unjust taking of property from one who has a right to own it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Properly defined, stealing is always and everywhere absolutely immoral.

Who says that yours is the “proper” definition? And how would the “unjust” taking be defined?

Stealing: the -]unjust/-] taking of property from one who has a right to own it.

Just like: “lying is: the stating of a FALSE proposition which you know is false”. As such telling your child that the stuff under the Christmas tree has been manufactured by some elves at the North Pole and delivered by Santa is a LIE. A while lie, for sure, but a lie nevertheless.

Redefining words to suit your agenda is not praiseworthy.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Are there three kinds of statements: “IS” statements, “OUGHT” statements, and “CAN” statements?

No.

The sequence of words “no opinion is involved” seems to be somewhat idiomatic. If I say that in my opinion an enormous jar filled with jellybeans (visible to all who hear me) contains at least three jellybeans, then I imagine that some people might object. “That’s not an opinion,” they might say. So, is a statement not an opinion if the statement is true?

If someone objects, let them count those beans.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Fair enough… but you seem to want to have control over how the “X” in that statement is constructed. As long as there is an “X” – about which we can talk “under any and all circumstances” – we’re good to go. It doesn’t matter whether that “X” is quite abstract, or if it is rather precisely defined; all that matters – in the scope of the question of whether it’s “absolute” – is whether we can frame it up as a specification (that, as you point out, holds “under any and all circumstances”).

Moral questions really do deal with things that “IS” (if you’ll excuse the grammatical license). A moral proposition doesn’t say “murder ought to be wrong” – it says “murder is wrong”. Nice try, though.

There are many ways to construct a proposition. If the proposition can be transformed into an “IF x THEN y”, (while keeping its meaning intact) it is a conditional proposition.

 

[inocente]

o_mlly;14300082:

Properly defined, stealing is always and everywhere absolutely immoral.

Stealing: the unjust taking of property from one who has a right to own it.

Who says that yours is the “proper” definition? And how would the “unjust” taking be defined?

Errr, stealing is defined in the CCC:

*You shall not steal.

2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods.*

Redefining words to suit your agenda is not praiseworthy.

o_mlly is a Catholic and so using the Church’s definition.

Well, to be fair the CCC adds a further 4,600 words after those above, concerning the moral implications of stealing on social justice, the economy, rich nations, direct aid, caring for the poor …

For comparison, how many words are in your own treatise on the morality of stealing?

 

[PseuTonym]

Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
Are there three kinds of statements: “IS” statements, “OUGHT” statements, and “CAN” statements?

No.

Doesn’t performing a litmus test of a real, physical solution involve actual physical interactions of matter? Although we may be unable to predict exactly who will perform exactly what litmus tests, surely the physical reality of litmus tests occurring is an aspect of reality. How do we, as physical beings, gain access to the results of litmus tests if the phenomenon of litmus testing isn’t part of physical reality?

The claim that a litmus test CAN BE performed doesn’t sound like an actual observation of physical reality. Where do you see a CAN BE in physical reality?

If someone objects, let them count those beans.

Someone objects to the label “opinion” for my statement that the jar contains at least three beans. The motivation is agreement that there are at least three beans in the jar. When people cannot imagine disagreement, they refuse to allow the word “opinion” to be used.

On the other hand, when people know there is disagreement, but are convinced that those who disagree are wrong, they allow the word “opinion” to be used. They say, “Yes, it’s your opinion, and you are wrong.”

I’m not saying anything here about the truth or falsehood of claims about numbers of jellybeans. The above is simply an observation regarding usage of the word “opinion.”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Errr, stealing is defined in the CCC:

*You shall not steal.

2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods.*

o_mlly is a Catholic and so using the Church’s definition.

Well, to be fair the CCC adds a further 4,600 words after those above, concerning the moral implications of stealing on social justice, the economy, rich nations, direct aid, caring for the poor …

And the usual problem of communication persists. How can we exchange information, if basic, fundamental categories are not defined in a mutually acceptable manner. In the catholic definition there is an undefined word: “unjust”.

For comparison, how many words are in your own treatise on the morality of stealing?

I suggested the definition of “stealing is the taking of the property from someone.” Generally, stealing a loaf of bread to prevent starvation is STILL theft, albeit a justifiable one - if that loaf of bread in a surplus; meaning that the owner does not need it to prevent his own starvation. In other words, theft is not “absolutely” wrong, it is wrong in some cases and permissible in others.

In order to keep that “theft is always wrong, under any and all circumstances” it is necessary to redefine “theft” into something else.

 

[Bradski]

Stealing: the unjust taking of property from one who has a right to own it.

Unjust being something which we would consider to be wrong. So stealing is wrong if…it’s wrong. That doesn’t really get us far, does it.

And I would guess that your opinion of what constitutes unjust behaviour would be different to mine depending on the situation.

So we really are going nowhere.

 

[inocente]

And the usual problem of communication persists. How can we exchange information, if basic, fundamental categories are not defined in a mutually acceptable manner. In the catholic definition there is an undefined word: “unjust”.

But most of the other words are not defined either. The standard convention in all languages is that unless a word is defined locally or technically, it takes the standard dictionary definition. You can’t expect every author in the world to define every word she uses.

I suggested the definition of “stealing is the taking of the property from someone.”

That’s a very poor definition. According to that, taking something with permission is stealing. And borrowing something with permission but then not returning it is not stealing. The CCC definition is much more exact - “unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods”.

*Generally, stealing a loaf of bread to prevent starvation is STILL theft, albeit a justifiable one - if that loaf of bread in a surplus; meaning that the owner does not need it to prevent his own starvation. In other words, theft is not “absolutely” wrong, it is wrong in some cases and permissible in others.

In order to keep that “theft is always wrong, under any and all circumstances” it is necessary to redefine “theft” into something else. *

But that’s only because your definition of stealing is so loose as to be unworkable. Using the CCC definition, it’s not stealing unless it’s unjustly taking, in other words you need to judge on a case by case basis whether or not it is fair.

Notice also that you’ve switched from calling it ‘stealing’ to calling it ‘theft’, which you have not defined. Whereas the CCC does give a separate definition for theft.

The Church morality has hundreds of years of experience in normative ethics, applied ethics and metaethics. You may not agree with some of it, I don’t either, but misrepresenting it will get you nowhere. I suggest that if we want to be free to follow our own conscience, we should allow others the same freedom.

 

[o_mlly]

Unjust being something which we would consider to be wrong. So stealing is wrong if…it’s wrong. That doesn’t really get us far, does it.

And I would guess that your opinion of what constitutes unjust behaviour would be different to mine depending on the situation.

So we really are going nowhere.

Perhaps. To progress, since the issue is the morality of stealing, we need not agree on the idea of justice except as it relates to private property, that is agree on economic justice.

All property first belongs to the community or the state. The state permits individuals to claim as private certain properties. The distribution of wealth as private property is a right of the individual but not an unconditional right. Two principles of justice obtain in the sphere of “haves” and “have nots.”

The justice of treating equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality is the justice that entitles some of the haves to have more and some to have less in varying degrees. Overriding this right to private property is the limitation that none can have more than is compatible with everyone in the community having enough.

 

[Bradski]

Perhaps. To progress, since the issue is the morality of stealing, we need not agree on the idea of justice except as it relates to private property, that is agree on economic justice.

All property first belongs to the community or the state. The state permits individuals to claim as private certain properties. The distribution of wealth as private property is a right of the individual but not an unconditional right. Two principles of justice obtain in the sphere of “haves” and “have nots.”

The justice of treating equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality is the justice that entitles some of the haves to have more and some to have less in varying degrees. Overriding this right to private property is the limitation that none can have more than is compatible with everyone in the community having enough.

The matter depends entirely on whether you consider the act of stealing to be morally correct or not. There is nothing se to consider.

If I steal my neighbours gun to sell so that I can buy drugs you might consider that to be immoral. But what if I steal it because he just told me he was going to shoot his family?

How you define just or unjust is the crux of the matter. Or perhaps, as Innocente claims that the term needs no individual definition, whether you think the situation can be described as just or unjust.

I’d say that’s a personal opinion.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Well survival is good. If there was one question to which everyone would agree, it would be: ‘would you rather be alive than dead?’.

Not suicidal people or people who choose to give up their lives as a sacrifice for others. People like some soldiers, firemen, etc. in the proper circumstances.

But choosing survival over extinction doesn’t come into the decisions that we make. Sharing food with a friend is not done because we have an understanding of game theory and we are working for selfish ends to aid our survival.

Right. Which makes that behavior irrational. Especially the ultimate altruistic acts of giving up your own life.

But…the ones that were genetically inclined to be happy with relatively shorter tusks would survive in greater numbers and that genetic disposition would come to dominate.

In the same way, we don’t need to know, and rarely do, that sharing resources is actually beneficial to ourselves. It’s that those people who are more prone to share come to dominate and sharing becomes the done thing.

Right. Which makes the psychopath ultimately more rational than the rest of us in his moral estimations.

 

[Mort_Alz]

If you know that you could get away with it, you might buck the system. If there is no fear of retribution then anything, unfortunately goes. There are very many depressing examples that exhibit that exact point. Here’s one: independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-third-of-male-university-students-say-they-would-rape-a-woman-if-there-no-were-no-consequences-9978052.html

I might. And if I did, I wouldn’t be a bad person for doing it. Tell me I’m wrong.

If you’re a psycopath, then forget it. But everyone else? We’re all wary of being thought a coward or a bully or lazy or mean. And those negative feelings are there in the same way as the feelings of altruism are there. So we do a lot to avoid being a person who is not trusted.

The psychopath is conveniently free of shame, an emotion that is irrational unless shame is really informing us of something true and is not just irrational nature irrationally driving us to an irrational end. The psychopath is more rational than us despite (and because of) our feelings that his behavior is “bad.”

It won’t stop you beings a bad dude but so many of us do the right thing, generally speaking, that the system works. Just avoid situations where the rule of law is breaking down. We are risen apes, not fallen angels and quite often revert to what we were.

That’s the closest thing you’ve given me so far to a value judgment. That it is bad for us to revert to a “lower” evolutionary state even though whatever we did as apes or in-betweens was conducive to our survival at the time. The end of survival does not always justify the means, hence the truth that goodness is a real thing that is outside of ourselves.

 

[PseuTonym]

There are many ways to construct a proposition. If the proposition can be transformed into an “IF x THEN y”, (while keeping its meaning intact) it is a conditional proposition.

Given any proposition y, consider the following proposition that I will give the label T:
“If not then y.”

If y is true, then not is false. However, if not is false, then T is vacuously true.

If y is false, then T has the same truth value as “if true then false”, which is the one and only entry in the truth table for the “if … then” connective that is false. Thus, if y is false, then T is false.

Thus, regardless of the truth value of the proposition y, T has the same truth value as y. Is it just a coincidence that T and y have the same truth value, or is it possible that T keeps the meaning of y intact, even though T is a conditional? If the meaning is kept intact, then according to your definition, every proposition is a conditional proposition.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Given any proposition y, consider the following proposition that I will give the label T:
“If not then y.”

If y is true, then not is false. However, if not is false, then T is vacuously true.

If y is false, then T has the same truth value as “if true then false”, which is the one and only entry in the truth table for the “if … then” connective that is false. Thus, if y is false, then T is false.

Thus, regardless of the truth value of the proposition y, T has the same truth value as y. Is it just a coincidence that T and y have the same truth value, or is it possible that T keeps the meaning of y intact, even though T is a conditional? If the meaning is kept intact, then according to your definition, every proposition is a conditional proposition.

“If not then y” is always false.
“If y then y” is always true.

Tautology is always “true” and always meaningless.

 

[Mort_Alz]

I’ve noticed that so many committed atheists, when asked a “why” question, always answer with how, which, categorically, isn’t even an answer. But, they pretend like they don’t know they’re doing it. Maybe they don’t. I don’t know. Regardless, it never sufficiently answers any “why” question posed to them. Richard Dawkins said that “why” questions were silly, irrelevant, or the wrong questions to ask. He at least admitted that “we have to make up our own meaning” to life. But to take such a position is shot through and through with philosophical assumptions that no one takes to task. Even atheists begin their philosophies with unproven and unprovable assumptions the same as anyone. But the “New Atheists” behave as if they don’t know they’re doing this.

More then morality, I think that human consciousness, as we experience it, is indicative that a higher intelligence/mind/personality created us. Non-rational matter by itself, no matter how it is combined, cannot produce a “me” that is self-aware. It is, of course, always protested, that our brains are responsible for our consciousness because brain activity decreases during unconsciousness and ceases altogether at death. But a speaker hooked up to a distant microphone does the same thing. We observe that the magnets and plates move and vibrate certain ways with predictable consistency to produce various sounds. Yet, everyone knows that it is the voice behind the microphone that is the source. We do not obtuse my study the speaker and conclude that it is the totally responsible.

Sure, psychology shows us that much of our choices and actions are driven by unconscious forces, but I don’t think that fact alone sufficiently accounts for my own awareness of myself as one thinking being rather than an unconscious pile of well-organized atoms.

 

[PseuTonym]

“If not then y” is always false.

Consider the following statement (call it “S”):
For every integer n, if n is greater than 5, then n is greater than 3.

Suppose we give the name C to the conditional that depends on n:
if n is greater than 5, then n is greater than 3.

To assert S is to assert C(0) and C(1) and C(-1) and C(2) and C(-2) and …, where we plug in every integer value for n.

In particular, if S is true, then C(4) is true.
C(4) asserts: “if 4 is greater than 5, then 4 is greater than 3”
The antecedent “4 is greater than 5” is false.
The consequent “4 is greater than 3” is true.

Thus, C(4) asserts something of the form “if antecedent then consequent”, and the antecedent is false and the consequent is true, and C(4) is true.

Similarly, if (not is false) and (y is true), then the conditional “if not then y” is true.

 

[PseuTonym]

“If not then y” is always false.

The following might be clearer to you than what I already posted.
Let “y” be the name of the following sentence:
not(2 is an element of the empty set)

Consider the following two statements:

#1: the empty set is a subset of {1,2,3}
#2: for every n, if n is an element of {1,2,3}, then not(n is an element of the empty set)

Both #1 and #2 are true statements.

The definition of subset is:
h is a subset of k if and only if
for every n, (if n is an element of h, then n is an element of k)

Thus, #1 is equivalent to the following:
for every n, if n is an element of the empty set, then n is an element of {1,2,3}

Let us give the name P to the sentence:
not(n is an element of the empty set)

Thus, #1 is equivalent to:
for every n, if not(P), then n is an element of {1,2,3}

#2 is equivalent to:
for every n, if n is an element of {1,2,3}, then P.

“n is an element of {1,2,3}” is the bridge that takes us from not(P) to P

After all, #1 is of the form:
for every n, if not(P) then bridge

#2 is of the form:
for every n, if bridge, then P.

From #1 and #2, we obtain:
for every n, if not(P), then P.

If that is true for every n, then it is true in particular for n = 2.
Thus, if not(P(2)) then P(2)
In other words, if not then y