Ethical Facts: Do they exist?

[BaalChatzaf]

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

--Brant

Brains and glands at work. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf (Kosher meat).

[Brant Gaede]

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

--Brant

Brains and glands at work. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf (Kosher meat).

How does love feel, Bob?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

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

--Brant

Brains and glands at work. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf (Kosher meat).

How does love feel, Bob?

--Brant

Darn good. I like it. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

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

--Brant

Brains and glands at work. Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf (Kosher meat).

How does love feel, Bob?

--Brant

Darn good. I like it. Next question?

When I feel love it's something like a warm, benevolent glowing. I can't describe it any better than that.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

When I feel love it's something like a warm, benevolent glowing. I can't describe it any better than that.

--Brant

If you are trying to prove a good feeling exists independent of physical processes, you have not succeeded. Regardless of how subjective the apparent effect, the causes are physical. Our self awareness is defective in that we cannot get to the physical causes themselves with our subjectivity. That is why we have zillion dollar instruments. It is no different than using telescopes to see cosmic objects our eyes are too feeble to see unaided.

Everything that exists is physical including those things our incomplete and defective senses miss.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Your meat seems to be unsatisfied...

Michael

[tjohnson]

A statement of fact is one that is objective as possible which means that others looking at the evidence will agree with the statement.

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."

That is my definition of a statement of fact above. "fact" by itself is ambiguous, it could mean something outside our skin, like what we call 'lightwaves', it could be out internal experience of said waves, our description of our experience, etc.

[Brant Gaede]

When I feel love it's something like a warm, benevolent glowing. I can't describe it any better than that.

--Brant

If you are trying to prove a good feeling exists independent of physical processes, you have not succeeded. Regardless of how subjective the apparent effect, the causes are physical. Our self awareness is defective in that we cannot get to the physical causes themselves with our subjectivity. That is why we have zillion dollar instruments. It is no different than using telescopes to see cosmic objects our eyes are too feeble to see unaided.

Everything that exists is physical including those things our incomplete and defective senses miss.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to suggest a different context that you might focus on without really contradicting anything you've said about "meat." It's the context of human value and valuing. When you love someone you don't say I love meat. When I eat a delicious steak, that's the meat I love. I value my car. I don't think that I value its sheet metal, rubber and plastic.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Can any ethical principle be derived from the material nature of the cosmos?

I doubt it -- if you intended "any single ethical principle."

Anything posing as such a derived principle would be a commonplace or a tautology or deform the definition of ethical principle. In Randian thought, 'ethics' point to 'values' point to 'human life.' In one sense the 'material nature' of humanity as social and mutually-dependent can give rise to what we might call a prime directive: "Do not murder human beings" (killing other humans is fine, in all its non-murderous variations, of course **).

Can any ethical principle [be] derived from our material, organic biological makeup?

I would say no, unless you take notes on our makeup as part of our clade. In which case, recent research in primatology where it intersects with ethics/game theory/altruism/inborn 'moral grammar' is suggestive. Suggestive of a thin conclusion: Primates share a primitive ethic of 'fairness.' I won't insult you, Ba'ab, in giving you the links. I trust your reading of the vast scientific literature on ethics/morality as pertains to primates is well-informed.

Is there such a thing as an ethical fact?

This question needs to be reformulated to be less ambiguous. Give us an example of a purported ethical fact, so we know what you are describing.

In what [sense] does Nature "care" whether we are good or not?

"Nature" is a weasel word. "Nature" per se has no semantic meat to it. If by nature you mean the whole natural machinery of deterministic processes, from hydrogen generation in supernovae to capital punishment of apostates -- material processes (e.g., Natural Selection) are rather uncaring, punitive and vengeful stars like Kolob notwithstanding.

Or is ethics and morality a matter of convention and protocol?

Yes, indubitably, with the caveat that like 'emotion,' it can be argued on scientific grounds (a la Plutchik, Ekman) that there is a universal format to the primate faculty. Convention and protocol are to universal primate 'ethics' as is Javanese and Inuktitut are to 'universal language.'

So . . . I don't think you will get a decent answer from a strict Randian, for the sage has already spoken. The gong has sounded. Dinner is served and there is only one dish. Gruel, but described as 'manna.'

** it could be argued that those without such a faculty (a universal ethic) lack also a certain 'material' in their frontal lobes. Evidence from the laboratory suggests that a moral sense can be destroyed by lesion, or fail to develop. Such is sociopathy, inborn and induced. Such is the stuff of mirror neurons, 'empathy,' compassion, and other brain states and systems.

Edited December 13, 2007 by william.scherk

[UncleJim]

Can any ethical principle be derived from the material nature of the cosmos?

Yes. But only if you are talking about self. To act ethically means to act in accordance with what one is.

Can any ethical principle by derived from our material, organic biological makeup?

Same as above.

Is there such a thing as an ethical fact?

No. Fact occurs prior to epistemology. Its a metaphysical concept. Fact a naturally occurring mental resultant of when a brain comes in contact with an absolute aspect of physical reality.

In what what does Nature "care" whether we are good or not?

No one has said it does. The nature of nature is absolute. You do something in nature and it will return the favor. The consequences resulting from actions taken in reality will exactly represent the rationality of those actions.

Or is ethics and morality a matter of convention and protocol?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ethics explains how properly functioning humans-beings act when they are acting alone. Morality is the application of ethics to society.