Moral Certainty

[Brant Gaede]

I listened to the CBC radio show "Ideas" last night and it was about the danger of moral certainty. Betrand Russell was quoted as saying that all of the atrocities that man has inflicted on his fellow man are a result of moral certainty. This immediately got my interest in light of the certainty portrayed in objectivism as well as the critical attitude toward moral relativism. One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

Bertie--morally certain you can be sure. Since he wasn't stupid, this makes him a hypocrite.

--Brant

[psychoanaleesis]

Brant:

I think you have a good point there. If that supermarket still has an owner who is alive and still claims his right over the stocks found there, I'd ask him what is his price and see if I can offer anything to get the things I value. Besides, if you really are concerned of natural disasters, then you should have stocked up yourself before it happened.

The primary question being: Why are they poor in the first place? Did they never care to get out of the way they live? I presume that they are comfortable with being moochers though.

When you see these creatures barricading the streets with corpses just because the red cross can't give them more, then you know your are dealing with cannibals. They never had any realistic chance of surviving for a long time without outside aid.

The only thing that's keeping them alive is the regard for human life by those who live but they do not care to show any form of gratitude at least even through civility. They think it's for free? Absurd.

Edited March 3, 2010 by David Lee

[Brant Gaede]

Brant:

I think you have a good point there. If that supermarket still has an owner who is alive and still claims his right over the stocks found there, I'd ask him what is his price and see if I can offer anything to get the things I value. Besides, if you really are concerned of natural disasters, then you should have stocked up yourself before it happened.

The primary question being: Why are they poor in the first place? Did they never care to get out of the way they live? I presume that they are comfortable with being moochers though.

When you see these creatures barricading the streets with corpses just because the red cross can't give them more, then you know your are dealing with cannibals. They never had any realistic chance of surviving for a long time without outside aid.

The only thing that's keeping them alive is the regard for human life by those who live but they do not care to show any form of gratitude at least even through civility. They think it's for free? Absurd.

I'd defend my store with a gun. I was thinking of a store with no staff being over-run with looters who would get everything no matter what you did, loot or not. As for me, with baby starving I'd grab what I could, make a list and compensate the owners later. However, I'd have food at home so I wouldn't loot so the owner would end up with nothing. Sin loi. There was a case, I forget most details, where there was no staff so the customers manned the registers and gave the money collected to the owner. Nothing was stolen. All sales were accounted for. They may not have actually used the registers and totaled it all up by hand. I don't even remember what kind of store it was, but it was like 20 years ago.

--Brant

Edited March 3, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

I guess I'm not getting it

Right! You're not getting it! Realizing this can be an important first step, GS!

Helpfully,

JR

Realize this.

[tjohnson]

I guess I'm not getting it

Right! You're not getting it! Realizing this can be an important first step, GS!

Helpfully,

JR

Wait, he's not even sure that he's getting it... but, if it floats your boat GS, just make sure to get some long-term sealant instead of those corks. Lol.

WTF are you talking about?

[psychoanaleesis]

Brant:

I think you have a good point there. If that supermarket still has an owner who is alive and still claims his right over the stocks found there, I'd ask him what is his price and see if I can offer anything to get the things I value. Besides, if you really are concerned of natural disasters, then you should have stocked up yourself before it happened.

The primary question being: Why are they poor in the first place? Did they never care to get out of the way they live? I presume that they are comfortable with being moochers though.

When you see these creatures barricading the streets with corpses just because the red cross can't give them more, then you know your are dealing with cannibals. They never had any realistic chance of surviving for a long time without outside aid.

The only thing that's keeping them alive is the regard for human life by those who live but they do not care to show any form of gratitude at least even through civility. They think it's for free? Absurd.

I'd defend my store with a gun. I was thinking of a store with no staff being over-run with looters who would get everything no matter what you did, loot or not. As for me, with baby starving I'd grab what I could, make a list and compensate the owners later. However, I'd have food at home so I wouldn't loot so the owner would end up with nothing. Sin loi. There was a case, I forget most details, where there was no staff so the customers manned the registers and gave the money collected to the owner. Nothing was stolen. All sales were accounted for. They may not have actually used the registers and totaled it all up by hand. I don't even remember what kind of store it was, but it was like 20 years ago.

--Brant

Wow. Then the owner should rightfully compensate them (since they were temporary employees)... very nice story

[George H. Smith]

I'll repeat the questions I asked you about this in a past post:

- What precisely are your disagreements with Rand on these issues?

- Why precisely don't you care for her definition of "value" and "virtue"?

TIA for elaborating.

I hesitate to get into these areas because they are so complicated, and I should be spending more time on other things. I will therefore keep my initial remarks brief.

I don't care for Rand's definition of "value" ("that which one acts to gain and/or keep") because it is too narrow. We don't necessarily act to gain and/or keep something that we value. Earlier, I gave the example of a past event, the American Revolution, that I value but cannot do anything about. Similarly, I may value (or find value in) a painting or other work of art without doing anything to gain and/or keep it.

Over the years, I've read a fair amount on "axiology" (i.e., the general theory of value), and I have always left feeling dissatisfied. To find an all inclusive definition of "value" -- one that would encompass every type of value, such as economic, moral and aesthetic -- is the Holy Grail of axiology. And like the quest for the Holy Grail, the quest for a generic definition of "value" may be a futile one.

The most satisfactory attempt I know of was undertaken by Ralph Barton Perry in Realms of Value (Harvard, 1954). In a chapter that has been reprinted in various anthologies, Perry writes: "The fact is, however, that there is no such established and universal meaning [for value]. Different people mean different things in different contexts."

Perry then formulates and defends a generic definition that he believes incorporates the common denominator in the various usages of "value," viz.: "According to the definition of value here proposed, a thing -- any thing -- has value, or is valuable, in the original and generic sense when it is the object of an interest -- any interest." Perry then proceeds to explain in considerable detail what he means by "interest."

I don't want to defend Perry's thesis here; I merely mention it as a plausible possibility. And, please, don't repeat the tired refrain that Perry's definition would render all values "subjective." Perry explains why this isn't so, so you should read his account first-hand before swinging wildly at it.

My ideas about "virtue" are more fixed and definite than my ideas about "value" (in the generic sense), but I will need to postpone that discussion for a later time.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

I listened to the CBC radio show "Ideas" last night and it was about the danger of moral certainty. Betrand Russell was quoted as saying that all of the atrocities that man has inflicted on his fellow man are a result of moral certainty. This immediately got my interest in light of the certainty portrayed in objectivism as well as the critical attitude toward moral relativism. One of the interesting things the show touched on was that usually takes extraordinary measures to get one human to commit an atrocity on another - namely it takes a moral certainty that what one is doing is "right".

Bertie--morally certain you can be sure. Since he wasn't stupid, this makes him a hypocrite.

--Brant

Ah the old viscous circle routine. Moral certainty is dangerous. Are certain about that? This is what happens so when you confuse statements with statements about statements. The concept being referred to here is like what happens when people get systematically persecuted due to the moral certainty of the persecutors. The statements might be;

1. Moral certainty is dangerous

2. The certainty of statement 1 is then dangerous

Now the certainty₂ in statement 2 is not the same as the certainty₁ in statement 1. Certainty1 refers to a kind of human behaviour (which is asserted to be dangerous) whereas certainty2 refers to an evaluation of that behaviour. The upshot is, we can be certain that some other forms of certainty are problematic without contradiction. Interestingly enough, this is an application of Russell's Theory of Types.

[Brant Gaede]

I was attacking the hypocrite who blessed the world with his own moral certainty while complaining about others'. He should be remembered as a mathematician as Pauling should be remembered as a chemist, otherwise he stinks up the joint. As for moral certainty, the good guys do the best they can and the bad guys need to be civilized with a Craig--depending. By "depending" I mean sometimes it's not right or too expensive, referencing one's moral-political philosophy and bank account. What seems to be left out of these equations is the reasoning, evaluating mind. BR would have made more sense if he had referenced irrationality, though I'm not saying he didn't elsewhere; I'm just referring to what you referred to. It's very hard to argue against a non-argument dressed out in pretty clothes off in the middle distance as truth revealed.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

According to Rand, "The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of attaining happiness."

But isn't this "proper" code based on the false premise that all people will feel happy about the same things?

For example, what will make a bullfighter "happy" will make an animal rights activist unhappy and feel outraged.

So there can't exist a "proper code of values" with which both will identify.

Selene:

We must have standards you know.

DF: Perhaps, but they're not objective.

Indeed they aren't. For instance, a bullfighter's standard of ethical value is diametrically opposed to that of an animal rights activist.

Well, Rand allows for differing views of happiness to coexist and be morally correct in her view. Rand even goes as far as accepting sacrifice of one's own life if that life isn't worth living anymore. So life as a standard of value is not strictly enforced and it mutates into "life qua man" according to her standards. This creates a very weak position, the argument becomes circular, and the idea of Rand's morality and "objective" being used in the same sentence completely loses credibility.

The standard of value and morality itself is much much clearer if we take the Dawkins-based view. I say Dawkins only because he made it very clear that it's the GENE which is supreme and not just survival and reproduction. If we take the gene viewpoint, a great deal of human behaviour and morality is quite nicely explained, including altruism.

Bob

[Dragonfly]

Ah the old viscous circle routine.

First we had the viscous attack, now the viscous circle. Viscosity rules the world!

[George H. Smith]

Ah the old viscous circle routine.

Another problem with viscous circles is that you have to wash all that sticky stuff from your hands after you deal with them.

[Christopher]

Human relationships are delineated by various types of force: physical, economic, ideas, moral, etc. in various combinations.

I like this. I don't recall her exact words, but Rand said that under an oppressive government, citizens do not need to act with ethics (or was it rights?) towards other people. Her explanation was that since society was not honoring the individual, the individual was not required to honor other individuals within that society. In other words, the context of the environmental forces partially dictates the expression of moral behavior in Objectivism.

As for definition of morality, we've been primarily discussing Objectivist-based viewpoints in attempting to understand the confusion between morality and interpersonal behavior. There are several research-based psychological approaches to defining morality, one of which is a morality defined by various emotional responses.

From this perspective, people have unique moral-emotional responses to violations of personal rights, to violations of social standards, and to violations of divine rules (all three of which are of course shaped by cultural learning). From this perspective, notice that 2/3 of human's moral-emotional responses arise from social situations, and all three are shaped through social culture. So I guess this adds further understanding why it is easy to think that morality has no place on a desert island.

Christopher

[Christopher]

Ah the old viscous circle routine. Moral certainty is dangerous. Are certain about that?

One of my favorite quotes is from Star Wars III, the final fight scene in which the Jedi Obi'wan says: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

WTF!!!!

[Xray]

George H. Smith: A sentence in "Defining Atheism" was supposed to read:

"As we have seen, this positive definition of atheism is not the most common one, nor the traditional one -- not, that is, if we consult what most atheists have really said rather than listen to uninformed critics who tell us what atheists should have said."

The published version, however, reads: "...rather than listen to uniformed critics...."

I am still curious what kind of uniform critics of atheism wear.

Maybe the reader thought you meant priests in robes, monks in capes etc.

DF: First we had the viscous attack, now the viscous circle. Viscosity rules the world!

When I think how long it took me to cleanse my brain from the sticky illusion of "objective value" - "viscous" stuff indeed, very hard to get rid of.

DF: That man needs ethics has of course nothing to do with giving him a means to attain happiness, that is typically a definition by non-essentials. The real origin of ethics is that it creates stability by the evolution of modes of cooperation, which is a useful evolutionary strategy for the social animal man. In simple terms: by creating rules that you just cannot bash the head in of anyone you don't like, nor can arbitrarily steal the fruit of his labor etc., man in general gets a better chance of survival, even if it isn't always advantageous for the individual. You'll find comparable rules, mostly if not exclusively hardwired, in other social animals. In modern societies many of those rules have become laws. No matter how complex such systems may have become, this is the basic reason for their existence. That also means that ethics is a typically social concept, it concerns the interaction of any person with any other persons and is irrelevant for a lone person on a desert island. What he wants or doesn't want to do is exclusively his own concern.

GHS: Congratulations! By failing to understand the difference between prescriptive and descriptive disciplines, you have managed, in one fell swoop, to define 2500 years of ethical theory out of existence.

Imo DF's post addresses the root of the issue.

GHS: Is it too much to ask that a person actually study a subject for a while before making oracular pronouncements about it?

I can't think of a single post by DF where he did not know what he was talking about.

This is one of the least "oracular" posters I have ever come across on a forum.

George, can you give an example of a lone indvidual on a deserted island behaving "immoraly"?

Edited March 6, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

George:

Ms. Xray still thinks that the pre-frontal lobotomy was successful...

When I think how long it took me to cleanse my brain from the sticky illusion of "objective value" - "viscous" stuff indeed, very hard to get rid of.

Now she is continuing with her Modus Operandi which is ..."Daddy, can you please give me an example?" Why is the sky blue?*

Adam

*

[Xray]

Well, where does Objectivist morality - if anywhere - extend to the realm of 'other people'? (I don't just mean the NIOF principle.) GS has made me think of this again.

I speak as someone who was quite shocked way back then by the concept that ethics should be self-orientated, NOT group related.

ie,: how one gains value and happiness (that "state of non-contradictory joy") for one's own sake; rather than: how do we all get along.

Startling, but liberating.

Anyway, my belief is that implicit in the bulk of Rand's work - eg "Man's life, as required by nature.."or, "a morality proper to Man".. etc.

- is her sense of universality. Which in turn, implies Respect.

Here you are, and there are all the others, all carrying the same identity. We are 'all in it together', but each is fundamentally alone, totally self-responsible. (Even those who don't fully recognize it.)

If this doesn't evolve into a deep sense of respect, accompanied by benevolence and good-will, for other people, then nothing will.

In fact, it's only via self-centered Objectivist morality imo, that Respect for others can ever be complete.

I do think that Ayn Rand could have been more explicit on this-but maybe I've missed it, or she assumed it was obvious.

Tony

Imo the "fundamentally alone/totally self-responsible" bit can lead to an attitude of non-empathy for the suffering of others.

DF: Yup. It's the old equivocation of "good" in the sense of "efficient for the purpose" and "morally good". A thief can be quite good and successful in his job and in his life, but most people wouldn't say that he's morally good. A word like "evil" has no such ambiguity, it's clearly a term with a moral and not a utilitarian connotation. It's however absurd to say that the man on the desert island is behaving in an evil way if he isn't an efficient survivor.

And again, with the term "evil", the question starts with "Evil to whom? and "From which ethical standard"?

For example, to me, killing an animal for the sheer pleasure of it is evil. Which is why I consider bullfights as evil from my chosen standard of ethics.

For militant communists, everything bourgeois was labeled as "evil". Non-believers are "evil" in the eyes of the fanatic believer, etc.

GHS: Every action involves a choice, and every choice is driven by a value preference.

This bascally flushes the down the drain the idea of sacrificing a higher for a lower value. It is always the opposite: We decide in favor of a higher value we expect to get from the action of choosing.

Do the test and run through the choices you make in one day. No matter whether it is about mundane things like what to wear, or about possibly life-changing decisions - you will find that each choice you make, you make it because you want to obtain what you consider as your higher value at the moment of choice.

I don't care for Rand's definition of "value" ("that which one acts to gain and/or keep") because it is too narrow. We don't necessarily act to gain and/or keep something that we value. Earlier, I gave the example of a past event, the American Revolution, that I value but cannot do anything about. Similarly, I may value (or find value in) a painting or other work of art without doing anything to gain and/or keep it.

Have you been able to work out a more encompassing definition of "value"?

Also, what does your not caring for Rand's definition of value mean for the Cardinal Values she lists: Reason, Purpose Self-Esteem?

The most satisfactory attempt I know of was undertaken by Ralph Barton Perry in Realms of Value (Harvard, 1954). In a chapter that has been reprinted in various anthologies, Perry writes: "The fact is, however, that there is no such established and universal meaning [for value]. Different people mean different things in different contexts."

Perry then formulates and defends a generic definition that he believes incorporates the common denominator in the various usages of "value," viz.: "According to the definition of value here proposed, a thing -- any thing -- has value, or is valuable, in the original and generic sense when it is the object of an interest -- any interest." Perry then proceeds to explain in considerable detail what he means by "interest."

I don't want to defend Perry's thesis here; I merely mention it as a plausible possibility. And, please, don't repeat the tired refrain that Perry's definition would render all values "subjective." Perry explains why this isn't so, so you should read his account first-hand before swinging wildly at it.

Does Perry list values which he thinks are objective? If yes, can you give an example?

GHS: My ideas about "virtue" are more fixed and definite than my ideas about "value" (in the generic sense), but I will need to postpone that discussion for a later time.

I'm interested in your ideas about "virtue" since it does not figure in my system of ethics at all. For the term "virtue" is too loaded connotatively in my mind with "morally prim and proper" behavior, with the morality standards "by society" being imposed on the individual.

BobMac: The challenge is to try to separate what feels right to you and how her work might resonate with you because of this and the inherent "correctness" of her position.

In other words, I find Rand, for the most part, has logically consistent views and derivations and this more or less applies to her ethical ideas, but there's a danger in that. The problem is that her premises are often dead wrong.

Just shift from the plausible sounding "life (qua man) as the standard of value" to the more correct position that the nature of man includes the ability to choose and sometimes to change his standard of value. Big difference now. A man can choose to live life by another standard entirely, or a slightly different one (death is not the alternative contrary to Rand). This is why she has to jump through all kinds of nonsensical jibberish for her "emergency situations".

If you share her premises then you will probably come to the same conclusions, but I for one don't share her premises, and some of them are objectively wrong.

If the premises of an argument are wrong, then all conclusions based on the wrong premises are wrong as well. I can't think of a single example where this is not the case, but as always, will stand corrected if shown evidence disproving my statement.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

George, can you give an example of a lone indvidual on a deserted island behaving "immoraly"?

Use your own example. A lone individual on a deserted island kills an animal for the sheer pleasure of it.

For example, to me, killing an animal for the sheer pleasure of it is evil.

If the premises of an argument are wrong, then all conclusions based on the wrong premises are wrong as well. I can't think of a single example where this is not the case, but as always, will stand corrected if shown evidence disproving my statement.

This is patently wrong.

All bears are fish.

All fish are mammals.

Therefore, all bears are mammals.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

If the premises of an argument are wrong, then all conclusions based on the wrong premises are wrong as well. I can't think of a single example where this is not the case, but as always, will stand corrected if shown evidence disproving my statement.

Really, for example, I believe that their are little gravity Gods and faeries that control the fall of a rock from a cliff.

Does this mean that if I stand under the rock as it falls, it cannot hit me in the head?

Premise wrong.

Rock crushes head.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Humans are hunter-gatherers by nature. There is pleasure in the successful hunt. This is the basic male perspective. There are variations both of kind and degree.

--Brant

[Xray]

George, can you give an example of a lone indvidual on a deserted island behaving "immoraly"?

Use your own example. A lone individual on a deserted island kills an animal for the sheer pleasure of it.

For example, to me, killing an animal for the sheer pleasure of it is evil.

But it would not be immoral in the eyes of someone who does not care about the feelings of animals.

See also Brant's # 295 post on this. Many go hunting for the thrill of the kill and don't see their behavior as "immoral" at all. Kings, queens and high-ranked politicians are among them.

So where can we find any "objective" morality/immorality here?

Xray: If the premises of an argument are wrong, then all conclusions based on the wrong premises are wrong as well. I can't think of a single example where this is not the case, but as always, will stand corrected if shown evidence disproving my statement.

This is patently wrong.

All bears are fish.

All fish are mammals.

Therefore, all bears are mammals.

You have missed the point. It is about the wrong conclusions based on false premises. For it is clearly wrong to conclude that all bears are mammals because (false premises): "all bears are fish and fish are mammals".

I'll give you another example:

Premise: The sun revolves around the earth.

Conclusion: Therefore we have night and day on earth.

The conclusion that we have night and day because the sun revolves around the earth is clearly wrong.

If you want to refute an argument, always go for the premise(s) on which it is based and examine them. If you can expose the premise(s) as false, the argument will collapse.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

You have missed the point. It is about the wrong conclusions based on false premises. For it is clearly wrong to conclude that all bears are mammals because (false premises): "all bears are fish and fish are mammals".

LOL, and you are wrong. Reject the premises and conclude nothing if you wish, but the conclusion is correct based on the premises regardless of what you wish.

If the premises of an argument are wrong, then all conclusions based on the wrong premises are wrong as well. I can't think of a single example where this is not the case, but as always, will stand corrected if shown evidence disproving my statement.

The premises I gave are wrong, but the conclusion is correct, which shows that your saying "all conclusions based on the wrong premises are wrong" is wrong. You say you would stand corrected if shown evidence disproving your statement, and now you are trying to renege.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

You have missed the point. It is about the wrong conclusions based on false premises. For it is clearly wrong to conclude that all bears are mammals because (false premises): "all bears are fish and fish are mammals".

LOL, and you are wrong. Reject the premises and conclude nothing if you wish, but the conclusion is correct based on the premises regardless of what you wish.

If the premises of an argument are wrong, then all conclusions based on the wrong premises are wrong as well. I can't think of a single example where this is not the case, but as always, will stand corrected if shown evidence disproving my statement.

The premises I gave are wrong, but the conclusion is correct, which shows that your saying "all conclusions based on the wrong premises are wrong" is wrong. You say you would stand corrected if shown evidence disproving your statement, and now you are trying to renege.

You have provided no evidence. Do the reverse test: when I tell you that "all bears are mammals because all fish are mammals and bears are fish" - is this right or wrong?

For the issue is about examining the premises themselves. The proposition stated in a premise is true if it correspondends to a fact of reality. All conclusions derived from a false premise must necessarily be false as well.

I see where you are coming from, but it is not about syllogisms where anything can be created as a given, like: e. g.

All Calawambas are red.

X is a Calawamba.

Therefore X is red.

For the truth of the premise plays no role here.

Whereas in this discussion, it about the premises on which the argument(s) of a philiosophical thought system are based.

They are the focus and have to pass the reality test. In short, it is "Check your premises". So if the premise of an argument can be exposed as false, it has dramatic consequences for the argument, since the conclusions based on the false premise have no basis in reality, are wrong as well.

Another example to illustrate the point:

Premise: Animals can't feel pain.

Conclusion: Therefore it makes no difference how one treats them.

It is wrong to conclude that it makes no difference how one treats animals because they feel no pain. The error lies in the false premise.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

You have provided no evidence. Do the reverse test: when I tell you that "all bears are mammals because all fish are mammals and bears are fish" - is this right or wrong?

Both. The conclusion is right but the premises are wrong. However, in logic an argument is usually assessed as valid/invalid and sound/unsound. Being you are so logically challenged, I give you the evidence. In those terms, your statement (or the syllogism I made) is valid and unsound.

[Xray]

You have provided no evidence. Do the reverse test: when I tell you that "all bears are mammals because all fish are mammals and bears are fish" - is this right or wrong?

Both. The conclusion is right but the premises are wrong. However, in logic an argument is usually assessed as valid/invalid and sound/unsound. Being you are so logically challenged, I give you the evidence. In those terms, your statement (or the syllogism I made) is valid and unsound.

To keep the discussion focused on the core issue: is the premise that there exists "objective morality" true or false?

"A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises", it says in the article.

From this it follows that every argument based on false premises is unsound.