Morality and Subjectivity

[Betterave]

Hi again TS, happy new year.

It’s a much broader problem epistemically than just working out scientific models – this is the problem of ‘you don’t know what you don’t know’. For example, in science we apply the term “random” to phenomena that occur without discernible pattern, plan or purpose. Note the “discernible”, there, that’s the crucial feature I’m pointing at here. We don’t have any way to say some phenomenon is “fundamentally random”; it may be that there is purpose or patterns driving the phenomena, and just can’t see them.

So is such a phenomenon not random, then? Well, we’re stuck in that case, because we can never establish the “fundamental randomness” of anything. In practice, “random” is a “status” label, and ever subject to change. It’s not an ontological label, but a “level of discovery” label.

Something analogous applies to emergent properties. We come to apprehend phenomena at some level, and other phenomena at a higher level of description. We don’t have a way to synthesize the higher level phenomena form the lower at this point, but like “randomness”, “emergent” gets used to describe the “bridge” of unknowns between the lower level and the higher level dynamics. Like the wetness of water, or other emergent properties we have investigated, at length we might discover a model that predicts and even entails the higher level phenomena. But provisionally, while the level-transcending dynamics of a process or system are still largely unknown, “emergent” is the epistemic label we apply.

Very interesting! So ‘emergent’ is just an epistemic label on your view and you take it for granted that your view about this is correct (performative). So properties (ontological entities) aren’t really emergent at all on your view, ‘emergent’ is just a term that is applied to a property on the basis of its relative position in the historical emergence of the theoretical framework (context of discovery) in which the property is described? But no… you also seem to want to say that there is some kind of static, essential description of the theoretical framework which gives intrinsic criteria for ascribing the label “emergent” to a given property (see below). Subtle stuff, you say? Easy-to-miss insights? Perhaps it’s easy to miss your own conceptual confusion then too? Anyway, maybe you can take another shot at clarifying what it is you really want to say and how it is relevant. You seem to be painting a very general picture of your view of the process of scientific discovery and from there making some dogmatic leaps (beyond any possible experience) to declare that any particular total view of reality must be conformable to the ‘methodological dictates’ of this process (and really there is no concrete methodology that you’re appealing to here - you’ve merely presented an idealized heuristic for understanding the structure of scientific discovery and theory and then taken a big leap…).

The error I was pointing to was the idea that an emergent property must be “unpredictable” in some fundamental sense. That is, we don’t look at the wetness of water say that’s an emergent property only so long as we can not build physical models of hydrogen and oxygen that give rise to what we corroborate through observation as “wetness”. Wetness may be verywell understood, and utterly predictable at some point, and that would not “de-emergify” that property.

So de-emergification is impossible? Why? Even if “emergence” is just an epistemic label? (What was all that talk earlier about “ever subject to change”?

Also, I never said that an emergent property must be “unpredictable” in some fundamental sense, so your comments here still seem to fail to be relevant to the foregoing discussion.

That’s important, because the theist retort to appeals to emergence in complex systems is often “hah, that’s just your form of magic and superstition”. If I recall, that’s a line you’ve taken here in this thread. Emergence is not opaque by nature. It’s just as mechanical and natural as anything else in a real world physical model, it’s just “emergent” by virtue of being a second-order dynamic, and thus much more subtle as a target of discovery than first order processes.

I don’t recall taking that line. I thought I’d actually made substantive comments about the matter at hand, rather than engaging in diversion tactics (e.g., talking about what “atheists often say”…).

This is subtle stuff, and its easy to miss the insights, here. And of course, it’s a demanding subject to talk about here with clarity and precision, so it’s a challenge on my part that I may fail to uphold. But emergence is tied into the architecture of causality, and the dynamics of complexity. This is a “double diamond”, if concepts were ski runs.

For here, I think my contribution, if a very simple summary is demanded is that emergence is not magic, not a cousin of superstition, but is applied anti-superstition. It’s the intellectual enterprise that seeks to discover, describe, model and detail the kind of nuanced and spectacularly complex inter-relations of matter and energy that have others throwing up there hands and declaring “it must be God!”.

“Double diamond”? Hmmm… It seems to me, from what you’ve written here, that emergence is applied dogma in your case (hardly “anti-superstition”). In real science emergence is either an epistemic label indicating the lack of a theoretical story connecting two levels of phenomena or, where there are bridge theories, a strictly a posteriori designation of the status of one level of theory relative to another (a designation, by the way, which is explanatorily otiose, although its use might produce the psychological effect of inducing one to feel like one has accomplished something marvelously complex).

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by sidbrown
If the papal bull ad exstirpandum is wrong, could the papal bull humanae vitae also be wrong?

Delayed response…

Sure. Any statement could be false, from the individual thinker’s perspective, whether or not it calls itself infallible. That’s why we were given brains – to figure it out.

If a papal bull does not make any truth claims (as I gather is the case for Ad extirpanda), then it doesn’t make sense to say that it is false. (Unless you wanted to suggest that it was a forgery or something like that.) A helpful analysis:
zippycatholic.blogspot.com/2009/05/tale-of-two-documents-or-fallacy.html

 

[PRmerger]

Of course, it is called democracy and we practise it in most other areas of our lives do we not? In politics for example? Most clubs and associations and groups use it to vote their procedures and laws.

Governance, whose purpose is the protection of its citizens’ rights, ought function through democratic vote–i.e. “public opinion”

However, here’s 2 quotes I find quite interesting: (bold and BB codes mine)
“Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. **Some think it is the voice of God.” **-Mark Twain

(which, of course, it is not).

"The majority never have right on their side. Never I say! That is one of the social lies that a free thinking man is bound to rebel against. Who make up the majority in any given country? Is it wise men or the fools? [SIGN]I think we must agree that the fools are in a terrible, overwhelming majority, all the world over.[/SIGN] But how in the devil’s name can it ever be right for the fools to rule over the wise men?”
-Henrik Ibsen “An Enemy of the People”

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I might, in small part, agree with your judgment about governmental decision-making, but government does not legislate morality. By your standards, it seems that Hitler, being an elected leader, had every right to do what he did.

I never said any of this. I never claimed anything about Hitler and I never claimed government legislate morality. Quite the opposite.

In fact, try as I might, I can find little in this response that actually replies to me and what I am saying at all so I find myself unable to reply to it in any way. Sorry.

 

[PRmerger]

Quite simply, the only way we have to decide how to live with each other IS each other.

What authority can another person have over me? Why should acquiesce to another person–who may indeed be a fool, as Ibsen remarks–simply because another person has declared I should?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I never said any of this. I never claimed anything about Hitler and I never claimed government legislate morality. Quite the opposite.

In fact, try as I might, I can find little in this response that actually replies to me and what I am saying at all so I find myself unable to reply to it in any way. Sorry.

My apologies if I’m misunderstanding. You did say:

My response however is a very simple one. Morality is merely a subjective set of rules we work on in which to help us live with Each Other. It is therefore “Each other” that I present to you as an answer to breaking the above dilemma. Plain and simple democracy.

If morality is a subjective set of rules, then there is no one right thing. If there is no one right thing, you seem to be submitting that the best system is for everyone to advocate what they think is right. I’m simply pointing out that this was exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, and the people chose Hitler to lead them.

 

[PRmerger]

If morality is a subjective set of rules, then there is no one right thing. If there is no one right thing, you seem to be submitting that the best system is for everyone to advocate what they think is right. I’m simply pointing out that this was exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, and the people chose Hitler to lead them.

Indeed.

If society is what determines what’s right and wrong, we must ask ourselves: is society always correct? [SIGN1]Must we never disobey society?[/SIGN1] If we can disobey, then what authority can society possibly have over me? (None!!)

So, Nozzferrahhtoo’s argument that “each other” (i.e. society) is our moral authority seems to be a puzzling and peculiar (though common!) claim.

Anyway, who* is *society except other people just like myself?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

PR–

I agree with 99% of what you’re saying, but one little quibble…

If we can disobey, then what authority can society possibly have over me? (None!!)

From the fact that we are permitted to disobey society in some situations, it does not follow that we are permitted to disobey society in any situation. An authority is an entity we ought to respect, whom we ought to – all things being equal – obey. In this sense, governments *are *legitimate authorities, although they are not authorities over the conscience itself. Jesus recommended submission to earthly authorities, which we must not forget.

 

[PRmerger]

What is your opinion of the status of the papal bull: ad extirpandum?

This was a document issued by a pope that presented limits upon torture (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum) i.e, “it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs”

These seemed to recognize that some actions violated the individual’s dignity, and some did not. Source here:

 

[PRmerger]

PR–

I agree with 99% of what you’re saying, but one little quibble…

From the fact that we are permitted to disobey society in some situations, it does not follow that we are permitted to disobey society in any situation. An authority is an entity we ought to respect, whom we ought to – all things being equal – obey. In this sense, governments *are *legitimate authorities, although they are not authorities over the conscience itself. Jesus recommended submission to earthly authorities, which we must not forget.

The bottom line is: [SIGN1]*society cannot be our authority *if we are allowed to disobey it. [/SIGN1]

Thus, if society is not our authority in determining moral principles, what is?

Certainly, the Christian has an aswer.

I pose this question to the non-believers on this thread.

 

[sidbrown]

This was a document issued by a pope that presented limits upon torture (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum) i.e, “it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs”

These seemed to recognize that some actions violated the individual’s dignity, and some did not. Source here:

At the same time it did allow torture, albeit with limits as you have stated here. The fact is that the current teaching of the Church is that torture is not allowed, even with the limits as mentioned.

 

[PRmerger]

The fact is that the current teaching of the Church is that torture is not allowed, even with the limits as mentioned.

I have not read this. Do you have a document source?

My understanding is that we are permitted to hold a range of Catholic moral thoughts on this issue.

 

[Leela]

I have not read this. Do you have a document source?

My understanding is that we are permitted to hold a range of Catholic moral thoughts on this issue.

How could a range of Catholic moral thought all be correct? Isn’t this moral relativism?

 

[PRmerger]

How could a range of Catholic moral thought all be correct? Isn’t this moral relativism?

Indeed, it is. All moral relativism states is that we don’t know the truth. Certainly there are many, many questions which remain unanswered–and thus we are permitted to be "moral relativists’ in these areas.

Catholics can be moral relativists on torture, capital punishment, spanking, evolution, how many children to have, whether to abstain from fish on non-Lenten Fridays, Marian apparitions, whether praying the rosary is beneficial, receiving Communion in the hand or on the tongue, Latin Mass vs vernacular, vigil vs Sunday, (whew! I think I could go on and on, but my point has been made! )

 

[Leela]

Indeed, it is. All moral relativism states is that we don’t know the truth. Certainly there are many, many questions which remain unanswered–and thus we are permitted to be "moral relativists’ in these areas.

Catholics can be moral relativists on torture, capital punishment, spanking, evolution, how many children to have, whether to abstain from fish on non-Lenten Fridays, Marian apparitions, whether praying the rosary is beneficial, receiving Communion in the hand or on the tongue, Latin Mass vs vernacular, vigil vs Sunday, (whew! I think I could go on and on, but my point has been made! )

Moral relativism is not the situation of not knowing what is right or wrong in a given situation. It is the position that there is no right and wrong or that right and wrong can only be spoken about meaningfully with respect to a particular set of cultural norms where all such sets of cultural norms are arbitrary practices.

In these cases such as with torture, are you saying that there is no right or wrong or just that you don’t know what is right or wrong?

Best,
Leela

 

[PRmerger]

Moral relativism is not the situation of not knowing what is right or wrong in a given situation. It is the position that there is no right and wrong or that right and wrong can only be spoken about meaningfully with respect to a particular set of cultural norms where all such sets of cultural norms are arbitrary practices.

Yes. And it is the belief that there is no ultimate truth–whether it is the belief that there is no Ultimate Truth,

or

that there is no particular truth, as it relates to an individual case.

In these cases such as with torture, are you saying that there is no right or wrong or just that you don’t know what is right or wrong?

Best,
Leela

I don’t know. It may be both/and.

Catholics are permitted to hold a range of opinions on torture. My personal opinion is that torture violates an individual’s dignity; it’s not right for me, but, hey, I’m not going to inflict my personal morality on you or on society, for I know not everyone believes as I do on this issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t know. It may be both/and.

Catholics are permitted to hold a range of opinions on torture. My personal opinion is that torture violates an individual’s dignity; it’s not right for me, but, hey, I’m not going to inflict my personal morality on you or on society, for I know not everyone believes as I do on this issue.

My thoughts:

The fact that we can hold different moral positions on the topic is an indication of *epistemic *limitation, not ontological limitation. Whenever it comes to situations of harm, there is a right action and a wrong action; we just might not know what they are.

As for “inflicting personal morality” on other people, that’s what people are for! If we don’t hold one another to ethical standards, we aren’t doing ethics – we’re doing window-dressing.

 

[PRmerger]

As for “inflicting personal morality” on other people, that’s what people are for! If we don’t hold one another to ethical standards, we aren’t doing ethics – we’re doing window-dressing.

I agree with you, Prodigal. I was simply making a point about the absurdity of that position.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

What authority can another person have over me? Why should acquiesce to another person–who may indeed be a fool, as Ibsen remarks–simply because another person has declared I should?

I am not asking any ONE person to have authority over you. I am talking about the majority of the society which you have chosen to remain a member of. The democratic majority has authority on how that society is formed and that society is what has authority over you.

However nothing I said suggested that any one person should individually have authority over you. We are answerable to the society and that society is what creates the idea of morality and law and what each of them should be.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I’m simply pointing out that this was exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, and the people chose Hitler to lead them.

Well if you have a problem with what Germany did then take it up with Germany. If you have a problem with what I am saying then take it up with me. That might be easier. I can not answer for Germany. However if you think open inquiry, freedom of speech and democracy was what was happening in Germany then you really need to re-read a lot of history. This was a dictatorship bourne of fear, secret police, the silencing of dissenters and more. In other words, nothing even remotely similar to what I am advocating.