How do you know murder is wrong?

[anthony]

Yeah. Any chosen action ~ought~ to be extracted from the best possible knowledge one has at the time. Which we know, doesn't make it always THE right one, as there are unknown facts and future variables, still, the consequence is the actor's responsibility, as he must always also take the rewards.

It must confound the empiricist! Poor guy. His article of faith is Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That billiard ball ~has~ to predictably react with a certain velocity and direction following an impact. Causation must hold true in every instance, all things equal, and so it does - physically. Except one type of ball doesn't. It might stay immobile - it may pause a while before motion - and/or it may shoot off in totally another direction and velocity. The area an empiricist has no explanation for is the human consciousness. But he may attempt to explain the brain, in an extreme materialist reductionism, as merely a type of 'muscle which calculates' (heh), and human actions as 'determined' by prior events, upbringing, education, and the man's 'group' - race, religion, etc. And by the authority of emotions. Those explain -for him- (with a lot of wriggling and evasion) the apparent erratic behavior of mankind.

Crimes have often been partly rationalised this way, and I think unnecessary wars have been justified deterministically: "What else was I (we, they) to do? He did that to me, so I must react with THIS". Not ~necessarily~ so. Free will and reality endlessly provide other options of action.

That version of a materialist metaphysics of mind, plus determinism and reduced self-responsibility, quite logically feed into an ethics of collectivism.

Any minds which independently conceptualize and judge, then act rationally and volitionally to the man's own character and for his values, are a decisive refutation of Empiricism-skepticism-determinism (and collectivism).

[BaalChatzaf]

15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

"Is" is metaphysical and "ought" epistemological. But to know the first requires the second and the second requires the first. "Ought" means ought to choose a particular and "is/ought" is an integrated whole. When one says no ought from is is possible it is already there. The only question is whether it is the right ought.

One can also say that "is" is the present and "ought" is the future as in "ought to do something" when done becomes that something so then we'd have the ought/is conundrum BUT it was "is/ought/is" all along--with "ought" the epistemological meat and the "ises" the metaphysical.

Judging "ought" by the consequences.

--Brant

Not so.  "Is"  is a matter of fact.  Metaphysics is the abstract philosophy -about-  existence qua existence.  Metaphysical refers to a philosophical doctrine not actual being. "Ought" is not epstemological.  It is -normative-.   "Ought" refers to possible states of the world  that are judged to be morally "right"  (whatever that means). Things which "ought to be"  might not be at all. 

[anthony]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not so.  "Is"  is a matter of fact.  Metaphysics is the abstract philosophy -about-  existence qua existence.  Metaphysical refers to a philosophical doctrine not actual being. "Ought" is not epstemological.  It is -normative-.   "Ought" refers to possible states of the world  that are judged to be morally "right"  (whatever that means). Things which "ought to be"  might not be at all. 

"Consider the long conceptual chain that starts from simple, ostensive definitions and rises to higher and still higher concepts, forming a hierarchical structure of knowledge so complex that no electronic computer could approach it. It is by means of such chains that man has to acquire and retain his knowledge of reality.

Yet this is the simpler part of his psycho-epistemological task. There is another part which is still more complex.

The other part consists of applying his knowledge—i.e., evaluating the facts of reality, choosing his goals and guiding his actions accordingly. To do that, man needs another chain of concepts, derived from and dependent on the first, yet separate and, in a sense, more complex: a chain of normative abstractions.

While cognitive abstractions identify the facts of reality, normative abstractions evaluate the facts, thus prescribing a choice of values and a course of action. Cognitive abstractions deal with that which is; normative abstractions deal with that which ought to be (in the realms open to man’s choice)."

AR

--

I.E. ("Ought" is normative, right: What is good? and the normative is one's conceptual chain of evaluation, distinct but tightly linked to the conceptual knowledge chain. Facts in reality have value-->disvalue, to one's life. From the normative/value abstractions one will select goals. What IS (identification), and what "ought to be" (an aspiration) and what one ought to do (action) to attain that, therefore are all epistemological processes).

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

"Consider the long conceptual chain that starts from simple, ostensive definitions and rises to higher and still higher concepts, forming a hierarchical structure of knowledge so complex that no electronic computer could approach it. It is by means of such chains that man has to acquire and retain his knowledge of reality.

Yet this is the simpler part of his psycho-epistemological task. There is another part which is still more complex.

The other part consists of applying his knowledge—i.e., evaluating the facts of reality, choosing his goals and guiding his actions accordingly. To do that, man needs another chain of concepts, derived from and dependent on the first, yet separate and, in a sense, more complex: a chain of normative abstractions.

While cognitive abstractions identify the facts of reality, normative abstractions evaluate the facts, thus prescribing a choice of values and a course of action. Cognitive abstractions deal with that which is; normative abstractions deal with that which ought to be (in the realms open to man’s choice)."

AR

--

I.E. ("Ought" is normative, right: What is good? and the normative is one's conceptual chain of evaluation, distinct but tightly linked to the conceptual knowledge chain. Facts in reality have value-->disvalue, to one's life. From the normative/value abstractions one will select goals. What IS (identification) and what "ought to be" (an aspiration) and what one ought to do (action) to attain that, therefore are all epistemological processes).

You should be aware that Rand used words in a non-standard way.  Metaphysical in normal parlance refers to matter of metaphysics, the philosophy of existence.  Rand also used a definition of the world "logic" that no logician in the world would use.

I always prceeded Obectivish words  with "$"  So Rand spoke of $metaphysical things  and $logic 

[Wolf DeVoon]

11 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You should be aware that Rand used words in a non-standard way.  Metaphysical in normal parlance refers to matter of metaphysics, the philosophy of existence.  Rand also used a definition of the world "logic" that no logician in the world would use.

Sure, predicate logic is so ... verbal, requiring definitions and such. How awful. Best to stop speaking English.

[BaalChatzaf]

48 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Sure, predicate logic is so ... verbal, requiring definitions and such. How awful. Best to stop speaking English.

One should be aware of the way words are used.  You are a writer, so you know that very well. Rand's usages and definitions of certain technical terms is non-standard.

[Wolf DeVoon]

11 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Rand's usages and definitions of certain technical terms is non-standard.

Go ahead, name a couple of them. Explain why they're hooey.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You should be aware that Rand used words in a non-standard way.  Metaphysical in normal parlance refers to matter of metaphysics, the philosophy of existence.  Rand also used a definition of the world "logic" that no logician in the world would use.

I always prceeded Obectivish words  with "$"  So Rand spoke of $metaphysical things  and $logic 

Well, Rand was "non-standard."

Do you even know where you are?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not so.  "Is"  is a matter of fact.  Metaphysics is the abstract philosophy -about-  existence qua existence.  Metaphysical refers to a philosophical doctrine not actual being. "Ought" is not epstemological.  It is -normative-.   "Ought" refers to possible states of the world  that are judged to be morally "right"  (whatever that means). Things which "ought to be"  might not be at all. 

There is no philosophy of "existence qua existence" relegated to metaphysics. It matters not in the least who says there is. Epistemology is always involved. "Normative" is not epistemological? Where is the physicality of "normative"? You are trying to cleave metaphysical from epistemological qua philosophy, but as soon as that happens you are unconscious and maybe dead.

Rand made sense and you're making nonsense. (I'm not saying she would endorse the above paragraph.)

And consider all the times you've told us philosophy is doxa. Here you are swimming around in it, telling us about it. Now simply tell us it isn't necessarily doxa and we'll go on from there.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

There is no philosophy of "existence qua existence" relegated to metaphysics.

--Brant

Read Aristotle's 12 books under the title metaphysics.  By the way that 12 book bundle  is called "metaphysics"  because it came right after his book "physics". Aristotle's metaphysics is all about what is and what could be.  Here is a summary of what Aristotle wrote:  http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/aristotle/section5.rhtml

Book gamma  is interesting. 

"Book Gamma asserts that philosophy, especially metaphysics, is the study of being qua being. That is, while other sciences investigate limited aspects of being, metaphysics investigates being itself. The study of being qua being amounts to the search into first principles and causes. Being itself is primarily identified with the idea of substance, but also with unity, plurality, and a variety of other concepts."  --- from the article referenced.

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well, Rand was "non-standard."

Do you even know where you are?

--Brant

Of course.....

One of her nonstandardisms was an incorrect definition of logic,  are at least a definition that is totally at variance to the definition logicians give for logic. 

She asserted that logic is the science of discipline of non-contradictory identification.  Virtually every professional logician will tell you desuctive logic is the discipline that deals with valid inference.  A deduction is an inference of one proposition from one or several others my means of the rules of valid inference.

Her usage is quite non-standard.  

[Wolf DeVoon]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A deduction is an inference of one proposition from one or several others my means of the rules of valid inference.

I think I've finally figured it out. You're a great innocent, Bob.

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Of course.....

One of her nonstandardisms was an incorrect definition of logic,  are at least a definition that is totally at variance to the definition logicians give for logic. 

She asserted that logic is the science of discipline of non-contradictory identification.  Virtually every professional logician will tell you desuctive logic is the discipline that deals with valid inference.  A deduction is an inference of one proposition from one or several others my means of the rules of valid inference.

Her usage is quite non-standard.  

So it stops there? You put up her definition and the other one--and that's that?

When does your thinking start? You just subjected Rand to an argument from authority.

Her whole philosophy is tied together by a continuous stream of deductive logic and that's regardless of her definition's validity.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Read Aristotle's 12 books under the title metaphysics.  By the way that 12 book bundle  is called "metaphysics"  because it came right after his book "physics". Aristotle's metaphysics is all about what is and what could be.  Here is a summary of what Aristotle wrote:  http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/aristotle/section5.rhtml

Book gamma  is interesting. 

"Book Gamma asserts that philosophy, especially metaphysics, is the study of being qua being. That is, while other sciences investigate limited aspects of being, metaphysics investigates being itself. The study of being qua being amounts to the search into first principles and causes. Being itself is primarily identified with the idea of substance, but also with unity, plurality, and a variety of other concepts."  --- from the article referenced.

That's nice. But you can't do metaphysics without using epistemology. It's called reason and reality or reality through reason(ing). I have no interest in your retreat into some kind of formalism even if it's Aristotle's.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

On 4/27/2017 at 2:18 AM, Brant Gaede said:

That's nice. But you can't do metaphysics without using epistemology. It's called reason and reality or reality through reason(ing). I have no interest in your retreat into some kind of formalism even if it's Aristotle's.

--Brant

I never said one could.  I pointed out that metaphysics or more exactly Aristotelian/Platonic  metaphysics  is about being.  Aristotle  emphasized substance and Plato claimed form is the primary mode of being.  Almost  all of us in the West have had  Aristotelian metaphysics inflicted upon us  from childhood and our metaphysical  vocabulary  is Greek  even when we use English words. Substance,  primary substance, cause, etc.   By the way,  our "Greek"  vocabulary is in the form of Latin based words.   Primary Substance  in Greek   sounds  like   "proto hooley"    We use the Greek "proto"  to mean basic or underlying.  

Like it or not,  philosophically  we are all Latinized Greeks.  Even Rand  was a Latinzed Greek with a particular fondness for Aristotle. She attempted to out-Aristotle  Aristotle.  For which she can hardly be blamed.  Aristotle was one of the most intelligent humanoids ever bred on this planet.   His main flaw was making his mistakes  seem like they were correct. 

Just a side note here:   reasonable sounding mistakes  can often be taken for  true assertions. That is what makes them such a pain and a stumbling block. Utterly absurd wrong stuff  is obvious   and hardly anyone is confused by the totally absurd.  It is well formed mistakes that are the danger. That is why Aristotle's mistakes took over a thousand years to correct. We finally purged science (or "natural philosophy")  of Aristotle's  errors  only in the last five hundred years or so. In doing so  we let  Plato and Pythagoras get a foot back in the door.  Their mistakes  are very plausible. 

[moralist]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 8:45 AM, anthony said:

For a proponent of science, it amazes me you don't acknowledge the settled findings of neuro-plasticity. We've known now for some time that one self-directs new neural pathways in the brain, by "electro-chemical reactions" -and- *actions*, all the time. One always, at every instant, has the choice of many options 1. where to turn and focus your senses on, 2. what to think about, identify and assess 3. which action or non-action to take, and finally occurs 4. one or other emotional (automated) response to the act. The number of permutations and combinations of so many options mount way beyond any single, "determined" outcome. And each selected mental and physical action (or reaction) creates a new neural pathway - physically - and so one 'forms' one's system of thought, ethics and character, by "choices".

I like saying philosophers got there first - by a long way. The empirical validation of the "volitional consciousness" by neuro-scientists should have been hailed as a major breakthrough- philosophically - if it has, I haven't heard much about it.

 As I see it, now few people can hide behind determinism ('atomic', biological, genetic, nurture or whatever) any longer. Determinism was seized upon and has been the mainstay of the secular Left, of course. One can't be faulted, ajudged or penalized for an action, caused by predating, "determining" factors beyond one's control (they asserted). That came into increasing prominence some time back, with shifting, subjective attitudes to criminals and their - possibly - reduced psychological responsibility, by society and the law. But it didn't stop there. No-blame, no-responsibility, is continually being extended further -  to (e.g.) a general and noticeable European, moral equivocation towards terror attackers.

"After all, they were 'predetermined' to do so by extremist teachings; they can't help themselves but to kill! Who are we to judge? Why is their faith any worse relatively than any faith - since we've dismissed the notion of moral standards. Someone must have insulted their feelings! (Anyway, they are only reacting deterministically to our nasty white patriarchy, Empires and Colonialism)".

Ultimately, who is to know that murder is evil/wrong - a 'wrong choice'- when self-determinism has been so undercut and the moral culture holds everybody less volitionally accountable? "If God is dead, everything is permitted". Same way, if free will is dead, you can do whatever is in your stars to do and evade the moral consequences.

Seems as though the progressive, post-modern determinist has hoist himself on his own petard. His self-same determinism is being thrown back in his face violently, by the radicals who share it, and his epistemological, ethical sterility can't explain why, condemn it or know how to oppose it - just collapsing back into the lowest denominator of delicate feelings, some shortlived outrage, and apologies to his brutalizers for being a little better than them.

Anthony, I'm in awe of your ability at defining this issue.

With the rise of the secular liberal political religion of "nonjudgemental" amoral determinism, of which Bob is among the most ardent of sycophants, comes the government's codification of the abdication of personal moral responsibility, and it's replacement with social engineering. Crime becomes just another disease to be treated with therapy and drugs. Criminals become innocent patients, innocent victims who had nothing to do with what they became and who are in need of government rehab counseling and healthcare.

In California, illegal alien felons are a politically protected class.

 

Greg

 

[moralist]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 0:06 PM, anthony said:

Round and round you go, back to the start, where you (still) can't derive ought from is.

You have just succinctly described the reason Bob doesn't know why murder is wrong.

Nature can only be is... whereas ought pertains solely to man.

 

Greg

[Peter]

Greg wrote: Criminals become innocent patients, innocent victims who had nothing to do with what they became and who are in need of government rehab counseling and healthcare. end quote

Amen to that. Locally, a long time ago, the wife of a prominent businessman would steal things from the local stores. Many times they would spot her doing it but did not stop her. Then they called her husband who would always make restitution. She had a disease, he said, and could not help herself.  

We had a local sheriff, who many respected. He caught a lot of bad guys and deterred crime through his diligence. My brother and his teenage friends were parked and drinking beer when the sheriff showed up. He did not arrest them but sent them packing, without their beer or bottled liquor. As adults many of those who might have been detained appreciated the Sheriff.

But the Sheriff smoked cigars and the old time shop keepers did not mind if he walked in and took a few. He was keeping an eye on things, after all.  Then the Acme came to town, and the Sheriff was spotted pocketing some cigars, and the “from out of town” store personnel called the State Troopers who arrested him. He was forced to resign.    

Peter      

[Peter]

The A is A problem was expounded upon by that great philosopher Roald Dahl and the song writers Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newly.

Pure Imagination

Willy Wonka: [Spoken] Hold your breath Make a wish Count to three

[Sung] Come with me, And you'll be, In a world of, Pure imagination

Take a look And you'll see Into your imagination

We'll begin With a spin Traveling in The world of my creation

What we'll see Will defy Explanation

If you want to view paradise Simply look around and view it

Anything you want to, do it Wanta change the world?

There's nothing To it There is no Life I know To compare with Pure imagination

Living there You'll be free If you truly wish to be

If you want to view paradise Simply look around and view it

Anything you want to, do it Wanta change the world? There's nothing To it

There is no Life I know To compare with Pure imagination

Living there You'll be free If you truly Wish to be.

It was written by British composers Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley specifically for the movie. It was sung by Gene Wilder (Willy Wonka).

[Peter]

Self-defense as opposed to murder have long been debated, going back to cave man days. Another interesting dilemma is doing undercover work for the police, and letting somebody off "easy," as dramatized by The Hollies. But come on! 45's?

Peter   

“Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress” by The Hollies

Saturday night I was downtown
Working for the FBI
Sitting in a nest of bad men
Whiskey bottles piling high
Bootlegging boozer on the west side
Full of people who are doing wrong
Just about to call up the DA man
When I heard this woman singing a song
A pair of 45s made me open my eyes
My temperature started to rise
She was a long cool woman in a black dress
Just a 5-9 beautiful tall
With just one look I was a bad mess
'Cause that long cool woman had it all
I saw her heading to the table
Well a tall walking big black cat
When Charlie said I hope that you're able, boy
Well I'm telling you she knows where it's at
Well then suddenly we heard the sirens
And everybody started to run
Jumping under doors and tables
Well I heard somebody shooting a gun
Well the DA was pumping my left hand
And she was holding my right
Well I told her, "Don't get scared
'Cause you're gonna be spared"

[anthony]

21 hours ago, moralist said:

 

Nature can only be is... whereas ought pertains solely to man.

 

Greg

Exactly, well put. Because man alone in nature possesses value and can value. However, the knowledge is not automatically given (or 'determined'), each individual has to find it and commit to it, by choice.

[moralist]

8 hours ago, anthony said:

Exactly, well put. Because man alone in nature possesses value and can value. However, the knowledge is not automatically given (or 'determined'), each individual has to find it and commit to it, by choice.

The ability to choose as well as the ability to be aware of what we choose and it's just and deserved consequences is what allows us to know we are accountable to the objective reality of a moral code of behavior we did not create. Our actions can only either agree or disagree with that objective moral reality... but they can never change that objective moral reality.

What's morally right will always be what's morally right. What's morally wrong will always be what's morally wrong....

...and each of us chooses either to agree... or to disagree with It.

And if you or anyone else here is wondering why I'm so down on Bob, the reason is he made the wrong choice. I have no respect for people who make wrong choices. America is basically a decent nation because is was originally founded on Judeo Christian moral law... and Bob only behaves because his government tells him it's legal... not because he knows what's right or wrong. This behavior is only possible for individuals who have chosen to avoid self awareness.

If Bob was in WWII Germany, he'd be gassing Jews because his government told him it was legal. If he was in an Islamic terrorist country, he'd be cutting heads off of infidels because Sharia law told him it was legal. And if he was in a cannibal tribe, he'd be eating someone else's brains.

Sad to say Bob's parents mindfucked him, and he never grew out of it to become self aware and morally self reflective adult.  Instead he embraced the mindfuck, and is actually proud of it.

Liberal governments love people like Bob who choose to not to be self aware, because they make such excellent bureaucratic employees. The amoral secular liberal education system in America has only one purpose... to produce amoral secularists like Bob who will serve the State by doing whatever they're told...

... as long as the State tells them it's legal.

Greg

.

[Peter]

Since we were talking about basic Objectivists axioms I suggest you read Stephen Boydstun’s article which I think he apply called “Rand’s Axioms." Here is some that I snipped.

Peter    

Stephen Boydstun wrote: . . . .  and conceived of logic as “the art of non-contradictory identification,” and she held that “logic rests on the axiom that existence exists” (AS 1016). Recall that Rand’s first axiom for metaphysics is the affirmation that existence exists. ($) Two further axioms are manifest to one in the act of grasping the statement “existence exists.” These are that something exists which one perceives and that one exists and possesses consciousness of existing things (AS 1015). We have the following: Quote

(E) Existence exists.
(E1) Something exists which one perceives.
(E2) One exists and possesses consciousness of existing things.

I concur with the preceding, and to Rand’s E-axioms I would add a related supposition, which I call my epsilon-premise:

(ε) There is nothing in existence whose existence cannot be asserted.

If something exists, its existence can be asserted. Then because (E1) and (E2) are implicit in the act of grasping the assertion that any particular thing exists, there is nothing in existence that is not potentially the subject of acts of consciousness.**

Rand also takes as axiomatic that “to exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes” (AS 1016). A thing is itself, it is what it is. An object is of one sort or another, it possesses certain attributes and not others, and its actions are certain ones and not others. In three words,

Quote (I) Existence is identity.

Every existent is with identity. If something exists, then it is not without identity.

The identities of existents exist with them. Adding (ε), we may conclude (ι): all identities of existents can be asserted. Any identity of an existent that is so can be asserted to be so. Implicit in the act of grasping the statement that a certain identity is so, of a certain existent, is the fact that some identity holds which one perceives and that one exists as a consciousness of identities.

Concerning consciousness, taken as the act of perceiving that which exists, Rand poses the further axiom:

Quote (C ) Consciousness is identification.

The art of non-contradictory identification is logic, in Rand’s conception of it, and “logic rests on the axiom that existence exists” (AS 1016). Then it is not a logical possibility that nothing exists (further).

Rand presents (E) expressly as an axiom. She does not present (I) and (C ) expressly as axioms, though she strongly suggests that they are axioms. They are introduced as completing the traditional law of identity, the principle that a thing is itself, or A is A (AS 1016; further – A, B). Rand takes (I) and (C ) to state primary facts and to be immediate and most important elucidations of the three concepts she takes to be axiomatic expressly: existence, identity, and consciousness (ITOE 55–56). end quote

[Brant Gaede]

On 3/26/2017 at 1:02 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Murder is defined in law  as wrongful homicide,  so axiomatically by definition  murder is wrong.  But not all homicide is wrong.  If done is self defense or defense of family it is kosher.  If done as an act of war in pursuance of a legal order it is kosher. 

I might murder someone I knew was a murderer-rapist, for instance--of someone I loved. Someone might escape the law but fall prey to a vengeful relative. Now, tell me where the "wrong" is.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Steve Mallory did the right thing, shooting at Toohey. Too bad he missed.