What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[ThinkingSapien]

There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

As not to derail things I won’t fully express my thoughts much beyond saying my thoughts are compatible with yours. I’ve never been able to understand why a sexual act without a certification from the state is prohibited by Yahweh. .

 

[Peter_Plato]

As not to derail things I won’t fully express my thoughts much beyond saying my thoughts are compatible with yours. I’ve never been able to understand why a sexual act without a certification from the state is prohibited by Yahweh. .

Your inability to comprehend something is not an argument against it being true, morally or otherwise.

The point here is that observation, of any type or quality, will not provide any basis upon which to form a moral opinion one way or another on the issue, which is why Hee_Zen’s insistence regarding the sufficiency of the scientific method to verify the claims of naturalism makes his “sufficiency” argument a non-starter with regard to moral claims.

An “ought” cannot be derived from an “is” no matter how carefully that “is” is documented and verified.

Morally important claims MUST depend upon compelling arguments regarding ends and means, not merely upon the “facts” that can be observed around us.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Your inability to comprehend something is not an argument against it being true, morally or otherwise.

It wasn’t meant to be an argument. It’s a statement that my stance (what ever it may be) is compatible. I’ve not shared the details and nuances of my stance for the reasons mentioned above.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Hello?

Yes, hello! This is what you said in post #683:

You claim that observation is sufficient to enable certain knowledge with regard to agency.

Pretty clear, I would say. And I did not say that, because that would be baloney. You presented you own nonsense and tried to put it into my mouth.

Yes, I understand that “observation” is not identical to “enough information” or to attempts to “verify/falsify,” but the implication is there.

No, the implication is NOT there. Where do you get these nonsensical ideas?

Care to explain how “observation confirmed by prediction and verification” IS NOT what you mean by “enough information?”

Huh? I said that we have enough information when our hypothesis is borne out by the experiments. And before you bring up your usual nonsense it has nothing to do with “what shall we do with the information we gathered”.

As far as I can tell, what you mean by “enough information” reduces to formal observation in the disciplined sense of confirmed by the scientific method.

Serious oversimplification. But if that is the “best you can do”…

Sure, you don’t mean merely observation in a general sense, but your claim still reduces to “observation” of a particular quality and type and nothing more.

Now you invented “observation in a general sense”? How many nonsensical ideas can you squeeze into a short post? Observation is simply observation, nothing more, nothing less. It is the first step of gaining knowledge about the external reality.

I don’t see how this affects my argument other than as a request that I make a more clear stipulation of what I mean by “observation.”

In this case you have serious comprehension problems. This “clarification” was a total repudiation of what you said before. There is a world of difference between “mere observation” and the “observation - analysis - hypothesis forming - prediction - verification or falsification”. Observation is necessary, but not sufficient to gain knowledge.

Of course, now you try to “whitewash” your previous stance, but you only fool those who are unable to see the difference. Instead of trying to backpedal, you should have come clean.

The point here is that observation, of any type or quality, will not provide any basis upon which to form a moral opinion one way or another on the issue, which is why Hee_Zen’s insistence regarding the sufficiency of the scientific method to verify the claims of naturalism makes his “sufficiency” argument a non-starter with regard to moral claims.

An “ought” cannot be derived from an “is” no matter how carefully that “is” is documented and verified.

Morally important claims MUST depend upon compelling arguments regarding ends and means, not merely upon the “facts” that can be observed around us.

You say this as if it were some major revelation, when it is simply trivial. Of course the knowledge of the facts is insufficient to make “ought” decisions, and if you ever bothered to ask me, I would have agreed to this.

Gathering knowledge is only the first step in the process of making so-called “moral” decisions - or any decisions for that matter. Sure looks like that you are confused about the sub-categories of philosophy. They are:

1. metaphysics - what exists?
2. epistemology - how do we know it?
3. ethics - how should we behave?

Ethics is the third part. Epistemology has NOTHING to do with ethics. You failed to recognize that this thread is about epistemology and NOT about ethics - no matter how hard you tried to derail the thread.

 

[Shaolen]

Sorry, I ignore all his posts until he comes clean. It is a rule of the board to substantiate one’s assertions. And he “accused” me to profess a stance which I do not hold. So I demand that he would dig out the posts where I supposedly said what he asserts. Once he does it, I will be happy to acknowledge his posts again - and I will apologize, too. Or he can admit that he was mistaken and I never said what he says I did. I am sick and tired of these baseless “accusations” and distortions. So if you wish to reflect on some point, you need to do it yourself.

I said that I accept objective morality, but not an absolute one. Getting frustrating to be misquoted all the time.

No, murder is the **unlawful **taking a human life. It has nothing to do with “innocent”. It is a legal term. And it is viewed harshly, because it is irreversible.

In our existing societies I would agree that it is. But you created a complex example, with the end, the means and the intent. I have no problem with making an assessment of a fully qualified act. But I could envision a society, where such an act would be acceptable. Example: in a hypothetical world, where only the tortured ones would get to heaven as a reward for their suffering. You guys keep forgetting that “absolute” morality must hold in every conceivable society, in any conceivable time for every possible circumstances. Not just human societies in our age.

This is a specific act, and I agree with it. He used peaceful measures for a good cause.

About murder, regardless of if the word innocent is in the definition or not, your example earlier doesn’t work because you changed murder from something permanent to something reversible which is not true. And it being not true that murder is reversible makes your example quite meaningless.

I think you misunderstood what I meant with objective moral truths. Moral truths are statements about good and bad or right and wrong that are objectively true in the same way that scientific statements are true. They tell us how human beings ought to treat one another. We can divide these truths into objective moral values and objective moral duties. Objective moral values relate to what is good or bad. For example, it is objectively good to love a human being and help him flourish, whereas it is objectively bad to cause suffering for its own sake. These values are objective because even if people like the nazis, kkk etc. Think it is good to cause Suffering they are simply mistaken. Objective moral duties are commands we must obey such as “love your neighbor as yourself” or “do not torture a child for fun.” These duties are objective because our opinions do not change our obligation to follow them.
Natural origins are insufficient to explain objective moral truths.

You stated “in our existing societies” so would some other society not have to follow the same morality? (and no your example of only the tortured ones going to heaven doesn’t count as it falls prey to the same problem your murder example has. You try to change reality to have it agree with you). Your position then, if another society doesn’t have to follow the same morality, is crossing into relativism.

The reason I mentioned martin Luther king Jr is that if the idea that morality is subjective to whatever the society of the time and place decides, then racial discrimination was good, right, or just since that was the widely accepted and licit practice of that society and Dr Martin Luther king Jr wouldn’t have any grounds to complain. But we know that’s not true and I think you’d agree (I hope).

 

[Shaolen]

As not to derail things I won’t fully express my thoughts much beyond saying my thoughts are compatible with yours. I’ve never been able to understand why a sexual act without a certification from the state is prohibited by Yahweh. .

There’s actually a lot of good chastity talks that could help you at least better understand where we’re coming from on that. ������

 

[Hee_Zen]

About murder, regardless of if the word innocent is in the definition or not, your example earlier doesn’t work because you changed murder from something permanent to something reversible which is not true. And it being not true that murder is reversible makes your example quite meaningless.

Actually, it shows that the classification of an act is contingent upon the “technology” and upon the laws of the society. A few decades ago “dueling” was an accepted custom. Even dueling to the death.

I think you misunderstood what I meant with objective moral truths. Moral truths are statements about good and bad or right and wrong that are objectively true in the same way that scientific statements are true.

Not in the same way. A scientific statement is not contingent upon our aims and desires.

They tell us how human beings ought to treat one another.

Sure. Based upon what? The desire to achieve some goal, the ways and mean that allow this goal to be reached. Another example. Cannibalism is usually considered an “immoral” act. But the survivors in the airplane crash in the Andes had to resort to cannibalism, since they wanted to survive. To my best knowledge no one chastised them for this “immoral” act. Special circumstances require special rules. Only the church says that “some acts are intrinsically evil, regardless of the circumstances”.

Objective moral values relate to what is good or bad. For example, it is objectively good to love a human being and help him flourish, whereas it is objectively bad to cause suffering for its own sake.

Yes, I agree. But “flourishing” is not absolute. It depends on the circumstances.

These values are objective because even if people like the nazis, kkk etc. Think it is good to cause Suffering they are simply mistaken.

You are preaching to the choir here. Better tell this to those, who say that suffering can be “redemptive”, so it can be “good”. And who says this? You can have three guesses.

Objective moral duties are commands we must obey such as “love your neighbor as yourself” or “do not torture a child for fun.” These duties are objective because our opinions do not change our obligation to follow them.
Natural origins are insufficient to explain objective moral truths.

Sure they are sufficient. Biology is objective and the “golden rules” are the direct corollary of it.

You stated “in our existing societies” so would some other society not have to follow the same morality? (and no your example of only the tortured ones going to heaven doesn’t count as it falls prey to the same problem your murder example has. You try to change reality to have it agree with you).

Why not? It is easy to envision completely different beings, with completely different societies and thus different social customs (or “morals”). Read some books of Larry Niven about the Pierson puppeteers and the Kzinti. It is fiction, of course, but a great source for thought experiments.

Your position then, if another society doesn’t have to follow the same morality, is crossing into relativism.

Of course it does. But “relative” is not the opposite of “objective”, it is the opposite of “absolute”. The opposite of “objective” is “subjective”.

The reason I mentioned martin Luther king Jr is that if the idea that morality is subjective to whatever the society of the time and place decides, then racial discrimination was good, right, or just since that was the widely accepted and licit practice of that society and Dr Martin Luther king Jr wouldn’t have any grounds to complain. But we know that’s not true and I think you’d agree (I hope).

It was considered right and moral by the practitioners, and they quoted the bible, chapter and verse to uphold their discrimination. We may disagree with them, but that is neither here nor there.

But this is not the topic of the tread, so please stop it.

 

[Hee_Zen]

There’s actually a lot of good chastity talks that could help you at least better understand where we’re coming from on that. ������

As the old saying goes: “Of all the sexual perversions, the most unnatural one is chastity”. If someone wishes to practice it, that is his own business. But it is neither healthy, nor desirable.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

1. metaphysics - what exists?
2. epistemology - how do we know it?
3. ethics - how should we behave?

Ethics is the third part. Epistemology has NOTHING to do with ethics. You failed to recognize that this thread is about epistemology and NOT about ethics - no matter how hard you tried to derail the thread.

Hey Hee Zen,

Long time no see!

Actually, using these definitions, ethics and epistemology are inseparable. “Ethics” answers the question: why should we bother about philosophy? Peter Plato was (I think) trying to say that the first two items in your list are a waste of time without the third. Facts are pointless without knowing what we ought to do with them. Thus, Peter Plato drew attention to the fact that an “ought” can never come from an “is.”

And thus, an epistemological discussion is not derailed when it becomes ethical, as the vast majority of this thread has. What did you expect when you claimed that the actions of God are immoral on a Christian forum?

-Greg

 

[Shaolen]

Actually, it shows that the classification of an act is contingent upon the “technology” and upon the laws of the society. A few decades ago “dueling” was an accepted custom. Even dueling to the death.

Not in the same way. A scientific statement is not contingent upon our aims and desires.

Sure. Based upon what? The desire to achieve some goal, the ways and mean that allow this goal to be reached. Another example. Cannibalism is usually considered an “immoral” act. But the survivors in the airplane crash in the Andes had to resort to cannibalism, since they wanted to survive. To my best knowledge no one chastised them for this “immoral” act. Special circumstances require special rules. Only the church says that “some acts are intrinsically evil, regardless of the circumstances”.

Yes, I agree. But “flourishing” is not absolute. It depends on the circumstances.

You are preaching to the choir here. Better tell this to those, who say that suffering can be “redemptive”, so it can be “good”. And who says this? You can have three guesses.

Sure they are sufficient. Biology is objective and the “golden rules” are the direct corollary of it.

Why not? It is easy to envision completely different beings, with completely different societies and thus different social customs (or “morals”). Read some books of Larry Niven about the Pierson puppeteers and the Kzinti. It is fiction, of course, but a great source for thought experiments.

Of course it does. But “relative” is not the opposite of “objective”, it is the opposite of “absolute”. The opposite of “objective” is “subjective”.

It was considered right and moral by the practitioners, and they quoted the bible, chapter and verse to uphold their discrimination. We may disagree with them, but that is neither here nor there.

But this is not the topic of the tread, so please stop it.

Since dueling to the death was an accepted custom does that mean it’s morally right?

When I said they are objectively true in the same way that scientific statements are I didn’t mean the method but rather they are [just as true] as those scientific statements.

Cannibalism so far as I know was never labeled intrinsically evil by the Catholic church and even in that very incident you mentioned the catholic church of Uruguay condoned the act and the bishop of Montevideo justified the act in that event comparing it to a transplant. And it’s not only the church that believes in objective moral truths.

My example didn’t require “flourishing” to be absolute. You’re really trying to steer this in a different direction.

We may say suffering can be redemptive but we certainly don’t teach for anyone to cause suffering for it’s own sake.

Biology doesn’t explain objective moral truths. Example: If our community decided to kill handicapped children after birth, it would be moral, since weeding out genetic abnormalities would improve herd health biologically speaking. Yet this wouldn’t be right would it? We hold that all human live has intrinsic value. As I said natural origins do not explain objective moral truths.

Thanks for the book referrals. I’ll have to check those out. However interesting alien or other intelligent beings and morality would be it’s not relevant to us humans.

But relativism holds to morals being subjective.

So you say “it was considered right and moral by the practitioners” but does that mean it was in fact right and moral? Since that was what the society deemed moral do you agree with that? If not you’re refuting the relativist view that morality is subjective to particular societies. The fact they “quoted the bible, chapter and verse to uphold their discrimination” (I’m not sure which verses they could use to hold such a position) doesn’t say much. The church and the bible objectively don’t teach the licit discrimination of race.

And this is on topic. One of the limits of scientific method would be that it can’t be used to explain objective moral truths.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As the old saying goes: “Of all the sexual perversions, the most unnatural one is chastity”. If someone wishes to practice it, that is his own business. But it is neither healthy, nor desirable.

And how would you “know” this to be true for certain without reference to certain knowledge using a sound epistemic method to determine ends and means? Which would be the point I’ve been making and you have been skirting.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Gathering knowledge is only the first step in the process of making so-called “moral” decisions - or any decisions for that matter. Sure looks like that you are confused about the sub-categories of philosophy. They are:

1. metaphysics - what exists?
2. epistemology - how do we know it?
3. ethics - how should we behave?

Ethics is the third part. Epistemology has NOTHING to do with ethics. You failed to recognize that this thread is about epistemology and NOT about ethics - no matter how hard you tried to derail the thread.

This has to be one of the most fatuous and miss-the-point replies I’ve ever seen.

The parallel in math would be one of your students pointing out that 1+2 do not equal 5 and you reply by claiming one is a positive integer. AND then you go on to lecture them that they seem confused about mathematical sub-categories, and THEN proceed to remind them that “in this class” WE maintain:

1. integers are whole numbers
2. algebra is a mathematical method we use to describe patterns
3. addition is an operation

Way to bury the need to defend your position under a mountain of irrelevancy!

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are subjective aspects of the objective reality (like beauty) which are not subject to ANY method.

Your claim is that beauty, and morality (apparently) are not subject to ANY epistemological method for certainty. Yet you make what appear to be definitive claims about abstinence as if you were claiming something meaningful. Consistency?

What you have maintained throughout this thread is that the scientific method is the ONLY viable one for making verifiable claims about objective reality. You further contend that epistemically certain claims about reality can only come from the kind of verification afforded by the scientific method.

My point was that for morality to be obligatory, in the sense required by the meaning of “moral” - imperative for all moral agents - it must be grounded in epistemic certainty, otherwise the idea of “obligatory” would simply disappear. The scientific method can only deal with the factual “is” about reality, not the ends and means which must be defined with certainty in order to hold moral agents accountable at the level required by morality.

You keep making contradictory moral claims - which demonstrates that you abide in a rather murky and undefined moral landscape. You have claimed that the Nazi genocide of Jews would have been moral for German society had the majority of that society gone along with it and yet you condemn chastity as the worst sexual perversion. Obviously, such “objective” claims cannot be grounded on the scientific method, but must be defensible based on some other “certain” epistemic method.

I would contend that a method for determining appropriate moral ends and means must exist, even for you, since you continually assume your moral statements should be taken by others to be objectively true. Sure, you slip back into the claim that such statements are merely “subjective,” but that makes no sense if moral imperatives are obligatory. You would have to be insane or evil - or both - to claim legitimate moral truths are not binding for all human beings as moral agents.

 

[tonyrey]

Facts are pointless without knowing what we ought to do with them. Thus, Peter Plato drew attention to the fact that an “ought” can never come from an “is.”

There is one notable exception. The fact that we have the power of reason implies that we ought to be reasonable! That is an irrefutable objective, moral truth…

 

[Hee_Zen]

Actually, using these definitions, ethics and epistemology are inseparable.

No, they are not. Ethics cannot be separated from metaphysics, in the sense that one must consider reality, when making ANY decisions - not just ethical ones. How could one make decisions without considering and/or knowing its results? Decisions are not made in a vacuum. However, the dependence is one way only. Ethics is contingent upon metaphysics, not the other way round.

On the other hand, epistemology is not contingent upon ethics. The study of reality must be dispassionate, it should not rely of the “hoped for” result. It is intellectually dishonest to posit a hypothesis and then only considering supporting evidence, while disregarding the ones which are against it.

“Ethics” answers the question: why should we bother about philosophy? Peter Plato was (I think) trying to say that the first two items in your list are a waste of time without the third.

If so, then he is mistaken.

Facts are pointless without knowing what we ought to do with them. Thus, Peter Plato drew attention to the fact that an “ought” can never come from an “is.”

That is a trivial observation. But it is premature to ask “what should one do with these facts” before ascertaining just what those facts are. Moreover, it is not even true. Humans are inquisitive creatures, and try to solve problems which have absolutely no significance outside their disciplines. Why else should one invest decades of his life to prove “Fermat’s last theorem”? There is no “ought” which would come from this “is”.

And thus, an epistemological discussion is not derailed when it becomes ethical, as the vast majority of this thread has.

Yes, it certainly is. First one needs to find out the facts before one can investigate what to do with them.

It is rather revealing that the “other side” wishes to change the goalposts, and wishes to drag in “ethics” before it becomes relevant. No matter how many times I ask about the epistemological method to examine the “supernatural”, they immediately try to change the subject to something else. They do not have a viable epistemological method to separate the true and false propositions about the alleged supernatural.

Anyhow, **Happy New Year **to you and everyone.

 

[Hee_Zen]

And it’s not only the church that believes in objective moral truths.

I hope you will understand that “absolute” and “objective” are NOT synonyms. It is next to impossible to conduct a conversation when the words are used differently.

One of the limits of scientific method would be that it can’t be used to explain objective moral truths.

It is not supposed to. “Moral truths” are not objectively existing ontological objects. And epistemology only deals with “how do we know what is”, and NOT with “what shall we do with it”. This is the nonsense that Plato tries to introduce into this thread.

 

[Hee_Zen]

This has to be one of the most fatuous and miss-the-point replies I’ve ever seen.

The parallel in math would be one of your students pointing out that 1+2 do not equal 5 and you reply by claiming one is a positive integer. AND then you go on to lecture them that they seem confused about mathematical sub-categories, and THEN proceed to remind them that “in this class” WE maintain:

1. integers are whole numbers
2. algebra is a mathematical method we use to describe patterns
3. addition is an operation

Way to bury the need to defend your position under a mountain of irrelevancy!

Well, your lack of comprehension is truly “catholic”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

And how would you “know” this to be true for certain without reference to certain knowledge using a sound epistemic method to determine ends and means? Which would be the point I’ve been making and you have been skirting.

My, oh my… you don’t even have a sense of humor. Sure looks like that your lack of comprehension is truly “catholic”.

 

[davidv]

As the old saying goes: “Of all the sexual perversions, the most unnatural one is chastity”. If someone wishes to practice it, that is his own business. But it is neither healthy, nor desirable.

^^^
Is this a scientific conclusion?

 

[Hee_Zen]

^^^
Is this a scientific conclusion?

No, it is a tongue-in-cheek remark. Don’t you have a sense of humor? Join the “illustrious crowd” of Peter Plato. Of course as usual, jokes have some foundation in reality, even if they “distort” reality to a certain extent - to make it more readily recognizable.