Ethical Facts: Do they exist?

[tjohnson]

Facts are facts. Reality is reality regardless of "condition". A fact that is "related to the human condition." is at best a truism.

We can observe or sense "reality" but we each get a different "picture". In order to compare what we are abstracting we need to use language as best as possible. A statement of fact is one that is objective as possible which means that others looking at the evidence will agree with the statement. Saying "facts are facts" over-simplifies a much more complicated process.

[BaalChatzaf]

1) From reality yes, if that's what you mean by "material nature of the cosmos."

2)Yes, if by "our material, organic biological makeup" you mean reality.

3)I'm not sure I understand back to back "what"'s, but who gives a shit what nature thinks. I always said that

"nature" was nothing but reality anyway. Reality always gets its way. It has no need for caring.

4)Many people treat ethics as a matter of convention. They refuse to think. However, this has nothing to do with a correct ethics. Many people, and many conventions can and are wrong.

Produce a "correct ethics" and show based on physical considerations alone that this and no other ethical system is possible and is consistent with human biological survival. (and please do not give me any Man qua Man shit. Just provide the biological basis). If a correct ethics exists based on physical processes and properties of the Cosmos alone, it must be unique.

I await with bated breath that which has eluded mankind for over ten thousand years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I hate to point this out, but using words like "shit" and sarcasm like "I await with bated breath" does not hide the fact that you have completely ignored all reasons provided from everyone and simply not dealt with them. I can't point to a single post of yours where you have. Ignoring and proclaiming opinions are not the same as discussing ideas.

You are better than that.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I hate to point this out, but using words like "shit" and sarcasm like "I await with bated breath" does not hide the fact that you have completely ignored all reasons provided from everyone and simply not dealt with them. I can't point to a single post of yours where you have. Ignoring and proclaiming opinions are not the same as discussing ideas.

You are better than that.

Michael

Reasons? I want to see lab reports and the math. That is reasons.

If it ain't science it is stamp collecting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

That is still a sidestep.

You don't answer matters like you need nourishment to live and the only way for humans to produce it consistently is by using reason because you can't. It is easier to ignore it and sidestep. I certainly do not need a lab report to know a simple fact like the source of human production (the mind).

I wake up after sleeping. So do you. Do you need a lab report and math to know that?

Or does a lump of meat need these things for even that because it cannot function otherwise?

M

[Ellen Stuttle]

You are better than that.

Michael,

You've used that rhetorical device with a number of other people too in a number of other contexts. The current example occurs in a particularly brief post of yours, which is why I chose this example to comment:

Do you realize how patronizing and condescending it is for you to place yourself in the role of knowing and judging another person's characterologic status? Maybe you do it in an attempt to encourage what you believe would be better behavior. But the presumption of your qualifications to be the other person's judge is more likely to get an unprintable emotional reaction from the recipient.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Let 'er fly if that is your intention.

I could go the standard Objectivist forum route and say the person is evil and so forth. I prefer encouragement (as a mark of my respect for the person) and a call for the person to do better than spew out the crap I just read.

I would say that whoever takes this as condescension has an insecurity problem. But maybe that would not be true in all cases. So I won't say it, even though I just did.

I wonder at the double standard of accepting the spewing of crap as OK and reasonable, but encouraging the contrary as condescending.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I could go the standard Objectivist forum route and say the person is evil and so forth. I prefer encouragement (as a mark of my respect for the person) and a call for the person to do better than spew out the crap I just read.

How about the alternative of just addressing "the crap"? As I said, maybe you use the technique "in an attempt to encourage what you believe would be better behavior," but I think it's a patronizing ploy -- also that insecurities would more likely be operative in a person with whom the technique works as a chastener.

Ellen

___

[studiodekadent]

Produce a "correct ethics" and show based on physical considerations alone that this and no other ethical system is possible and is consistent with human biological survival. (and please do not give me any Man qua Man shit. Just provide the biological basis). If a correct ethics exists based on physical processes and properties of the Cosmos alone, it must be unique.

By "physical considerations alone" are you expressly meaning a choice to remain alive is invalid?

If not, then Rand's morality perfectly suffices because it explains that choosing to remain alive is the context of morality.

If so, then you are asking for an intrinsic morality, which means that there has to be some sort of inherent (i.e. non-abstract, substantial) property called "good," and that requires Aristotelian universals (and hence leads to tree-hugging environmentalism, in the Aristotle via G. E. Moore "perfect world is good in itself" crap) or Platonic universals (and hence leads to religion, God after all is the "form of the Good" in religious cosmology).

[Dragonfly]

If not, then Rand's morality perfectly suffices because it explains that choosing to remain alive is the context of morality.

Even if we suppose that choosing to remain alive is the context of morality, this does in no way tell us what morality we should choose. You may argue why you prefer a particular kind of morality, but you cannot deduce your choice from physical facts like biological survival.

[BaalChatzaf]

If not, then Rand's morality perfectly suffices because it explains that choosing to remain alive is the context of morality.

Even if we suppose that choosing to remain alive is the context of morality, this does in no way tell us what morality we should choose. You may argue why you prefer a particular kind of morality, but you cannot deduce your choice from physical facts like biological survival.

Smarrrttt as paint ye arrrre!

In the Land of the Blind the One-Eyed Man is King.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How about the alternative of just addressing "the crap"?

Ellen,

How about already having done that 15,000 times?

If you want to get into a discussion on what patronizing really is, I can't think of anything more patronizing than:

1. Preaching repeatedly on a forum devoted to intellectual discussion with infantile slogans about ethics and mind not existing, killing people by the boatloads, etc., and

2. Telling someone how patronizing they are. That sets you up as the allegedly superior one, does it not, Ms. Grundy?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

How about the alternative of just addressing "the crap"?

Ellen,

How about already having done that 15,000 times?

If you want to get into a discussion on what patronizing really is, I can't think of anything more patronizing than:

1. Preaching repeatedly on a forum devoted to intellectual discussion with infantile slogans about ethics and mind not existing, killing people by the boatloads, etc., and

2. Telling someone how patronizing they are. That sets you up as the allegedly superior one, does it not, Ms. Grundy?

Michael

Nothing infantile. There is not one whit of physical (objective) evidence for the existence of mind as a stand alone object. What most what people call mind is an epiphenomena of brain activity. Mind is the buzzing of neurons. Life is a set of chemical processes. Descartes was wrong. There is only res extensa. There is no res cogitens that shows up on any scanner. Which means it probably does not exist. Real things can be detected by second and third parties. Mind is one of the persistent bogus notions in our culture. It is right up there with souls, gods, ghosts, spirits. It is rank superstition.

Apparently my factually based statements about mind are as welcome as a lecture on the theory of evolution at a creationist meeting or a sermon by an atheist at a church service.

If you wish to persist in the delusion that there is an Intelligent Person living up[ in your head, go right ahead. Most people do this because they hear voices in their heads. The -fact- is the only thing in your head is a three pound gelatinous mass that does all your thinking. You should really treat it with respect.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 7, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[studiodekadent]

Even if we suppose that choosing to remain alive is the context of morality, this does in no way tell us what morality we should choose. You may argue why you prefer a particular kind of morality, but you cannot deduce your choice from physical facts like biological survival.

Answer: The one which promotes survival and flourishing the most. This will be very similar for all people because humans have a common nature and hence there is very likely to be a common set of circumstances that encourage survival and flourishing the most.

[tjohnson]

Answer: The one which promotes survival and flourishing the most. This will be very similar for all people because humans have a common nature and hence there is very likely to be a common set of circumstances that encourage survival and flourishing the most.

Studio, I believe general semantics applied to all humans will lead to "survival and flourishing the most", most here believe objectivism will, this cannot be decided in any absolute manner. We believe certain theories and act on them until such time as they no longer work.

[studiodekadent]

Answer: The one which promotes survival and flourishing the most. This will be very similar for all people because humans have a common nature and hence there is very likely to be a common set of circumstances that encourage survival and flourishing the most.

Studio, I believe general semantics applied to all humans will lead to "survival and flourishing the most", most here believe objectivism will, this cannot be decided in any absolute manner. We believe certain theories and act on them until such time as they no longer work.

Of course.

Normative ethics are contextual. Its the metaethics that are the important thing.

[Dragonfly]

Answer: The one which promotes survival and flourishing the most. This will be very similar for all people because humans have a common nature and hence there is very likely to be a common set of circumstances that encourage survival and flourishing the most.

No, within the common nature of humans there are wide variations that will lead to many different and often quite opposing moralities. There are people who survive and flourish very well with a morality that is quite different from Rand's for example. Wishful thinking ("evil people can't flourish") is not a valid argument.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Is a bacteria a stand-alone object?

If so, how do you know?

If you can't prove it without making reference to its attributes, then this is proof that it does not exist.

That is the kind of so-called logic you present time and time again for the mind. I call it infantile because it is. There is no logic at all involved, just posturing.

(btw - No one I know of on OL is proposing a mind independent of a brain, but you keep on harping over and over as if they do.)

Michael

[tjohnson]

Of course.

Normative ethics are contextual. Its the metaethics that are the important thing.

Sorry, I don't know what this means.

[studiodekadent]

Of course.

Normative ethics are contextual. Its the metaethics that are the important thing.

Sorry, I don't know what this means.

Metaethics: A theory concerning the nature and origins of ethics, i.e. "what is ethics?" "What is the good?" "What is the origin of good and evil?" etc.

Normative ethics: Applications of the metaethics to the questions of "what is good?" For example "Is it good to have sex with a clubbed baby seal?" etc.

In other words, metaethics provides a standard and framework, normative ethics is the application of it to situations.

[Ellen Stuttle]

How about the alternative of just addressing "the crap"?

Ellen,

How about already having done that 15,000 times?

If you want to get into a discussion on what patronizing really is, I can't think of anything more patronizing than:

1. Preaching repeatedly on a forum devoted to intellectual discussion with infantile slogans about ethics and mind not existing, killing people by the boatloads, etc., and

2. Telling someone how patronizing they are. That sets you up as the allegedly superior one, does it not, Ms. Grundy?

Michael

Re question (2): No, especially since what you describe isn't what I did. I spoke to a particular rhetorical technique you've used on a number of occasions, one which "place yourself in the role of knowing and judging another person's characterologic status." I didn't presume to know and judge yours.

In regard to your specific problems with Bob: It seems clear that he irks you a lot. And if I recall right you've asked him several times to refrain at least from the saber-rattling posts. It doesn't seem he's going to do that, which leaves you with the choice, since you're one of the list administrators, of issuing an ultimatum and then revoking his posting privileges if he doesn't comply, or of putting up with it (however irkedly).

As to his "infantile slogans about ethics and mind not existing," on the first I think he gets the better of the argument, since he's proceeding from the position of the logical disjunct between "is" and "ought." On the second I think he's inconsistent, that the word "mind" triggers interference with his reasoning processes. But on the other hand I don't think the arguments you've posed are really addressing the issues either. So I assess that dispute as a draw.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Something should be made clear. There is no contest going on and no referee about who wins or loses. I have no idea what gets won or lost, anyway.

I like Bob despite his bombast. When he is good, he is very good. When he is bad, he is infantile.

I have no intention whatsoever of taking your insinuation about me being moderator any further. As far as I am concerned, Bob stays if he so desires. He can get irritating, but he stays within the posting guidelines and has respected OL by backing off when I have let him know that he is skirting too close to the limit on matters like bigotry.

But if he insists on filling this forum with rapid-fire crap, he will have to deal with my rapid-fire crap dogging him. He's not the only one who has the right to post crap. If it bothers you, don't read it. Bob and I have always worked it out before. I imagine we will continue to do so.

I think he can do better than crap. And I say so. I like his good stuff.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

How about the alternative of just addressing "the crap"?

Ellen,

How about already having done that 15,000 times?

If you want to get into a discussion on what patronizing really is, I can't think of anything more patronizing than:

1. Preaching repeatedly on a forum devoted to intellectual discussion with infantile slogans about ethics and mind not existing, killing people by the boatloads, etc., and

2. Telling someone how patronizing they are. That sets you up as the allegedly superior one, does it not, Ms. Grundy?

Michael

Nothing infantile. There is not one whit of physical (objective) evidence for the existence of mind as a stand alone object. What most what people call mind is an epiphenomena of brain activity. Mind is the buzzing of neurons. Life is a set of chemical processes. Descartes was wrong. There is only res extensa. There is no res cogitens that shows up on any scanner. Which means it probably does not exist. Real things can be detected by second and third parties. Mind is one of the persistent bogus notions in our culture. It is right up there with souls, gods, ghosts, spirits. It is rank superstition.

Apparently my factually based statements about mind are as welcome as a lecture on the theory of evolution at a creationist meeting or a sermon by an atheist at a church service.

If you wish to persist in the delusion that there is an Intelligent Person living up[ in your head, go right ahead. Most people do this because they hear voices in their heads. The -fact- is the only thing in your head is a three pound gelatinous mass that does all your thinking. You should really treat it with respect.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, now that you've told us about mind-not and brain what-not, please tell us about love.

--Brant

Edited December 8, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

As a PS to my last post, there is a further reason—a much stronger and more serious one—as to why I never would—Nay! never could—do a Rowlands Brainpain Splurgepurge Maneuver in exercising my moderating options against Bob. He was endorsed by no less than the inimitable Fred Weiss!

Interestingly enough, Fred admires Bob Kolker, our own dear Ba'al Chatzaf. (How's that for character assassination by association? ) See here. To quote the inimitable Mr. Weiss:

I will say that it is amusing to read your posts on the "Objectivist Living" forum - a pseudo-Objectivist (pro-Branden/Kelley) site where Bob often makes more sense than they do.

I am not sure who he is addressing since he seems to be addressing Bob, but then refers to him in the third person. Well, whatever. There it is.

With such praise for Bob gently wafting down upon us mere mortals from the towering lofts from whence it came, I am totally humbled.

Michael

[Jody Gomez]

Facts are facts. Reality is reality regardless of "condition". A fact that is "related to the human condition." is at best a truism.

We can observe or sense "reality" but we each get a different "picture". In order to compare what we are abstracting we need to use language as best as possible. A statement of fact is one that is objective as possible which means that others looking at the evidence will agree with the statement. Saying "facts are facts" over-simplifies a much more complicated process.

Before we go further, be a dear and define your definition of "fact" for me. It's crucial in my understanding of how saying that facts are facts "over-simplifies a much more complicated process."