Revisiting Moral Objectivism with Mathematical Notation

[Mike Windu]

Oh no, it's very visible. But then I wouldn't get to see your fabulous posts on interspace travel..

[Windu Chi]

Oh no, it's very visible. But then I wouldn't get to see your fabulous posts on interspace travel..

Why are you so fascinated by my post, no one here really gives a damn about my posts, concerning interstellar travel.

 

I'm wasting my time with those posts, but I'm to damn reluctant to give up.

 

Search this site~ American Antigravity if you are really interested, Mike Windu.

That's where your fascination should lay.

[Ray Jones]

What you believe morality and other knowledge was only acquired and invented by us?

What about animals like elephants, gorillas, monkeys dogs, etc.

YES. It was invented by us because we are the only bloody animals on Earth to post at 2:49 am in the morning on a thread regarding moral objectivism. And before you give me the whole "dude just cause they can't do stuff like talk or communicate with us doesn't mean they don't think like we do and have morals and stuff" schtick, I'd like to say that just cause I don't have wings doesn't mean I can't fly. Oh wait.

 

But if you must persist in this endeavor of advocating animal morality, show me some clear cut evidence and I'll consider it. Until then, fly Mikey fly.

 

Hmm. Some thoughts on the subject of animals and moral, taken from the moral relativism thread:

 

[...]

 

And isn't morality, the "universal standard", an exclusively human concept? Can real and especially intentional moral or amoral acting be expected from individuals/creatures/lifeforms, who are not capable of perceiving a concept like morality? Is the elephant, who frequents your yard, amoral, just because he stamps down on the frog and crushes it while he was focussing in on your apple tree instead of caring about where to step next? Or, is the (universal) principle of evolution, like survival of the fittest in particular, amoral? Is the little eagle, who is screaming the loudest, thus getting the most food and probably causing one of his siblings to starve, amoral? Or is it the mother eagle, giving him the most food and not sharing it equally?

 

Do we find something like morality outside of the pink monkey society?

I think I've answered this question before in this thread with the simple statements that the ability to apply morality is limited by limited intelligence and reasoning power, and that without the quality of empathy one has no reason to be moral. I don't know that animals other than humans possess empathy. I don't really know that other humans possess empathy. I assume they do, because they tell me so. But animals without empathy won't really want to be moral. And animals without our ability to reason and anticipate likely consequences of actions, won't be ABLE to be moral. Hey, most PEOPLE aren't moral. It's doubtful that many other animals are.

 

Also, the fact that other animals may not be capable of possessing a sense of morality is just as irrelevant as the fact that some humans aren't capable of possessing a sense of morality. So they can't. So what? The moral standard exists outside of individuals, be they man or elephant.

 

And of course, in the final analysis it's a moral truism that those with the most power have the most responsibility to use their power morally. Who has more power than intelligent humans? Who has a greater responsibility to be moral?

I think many animals feel empathy, especially the higher developed ones. Primates for instance and elephants, why not. I think empathy (and morality) becomes an aspect when a social together and also the ability to act independent to or despite of instinctive impulses exists. And the more complex the social interaction is, the more instinct-independend the train of thought is, the more we can expect empathy and some kind of desire for being moral, at least within this group of individuals.

 

However, these two questions lead me to the conclusion that whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will destroy life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so.

Couldn't agree more. A surfeit of intelligence doesn't just confer the ability to be moral, it also confers the responsibility to be moral. And I think that's mainly due to the fact that opportunity equals responsibility. The rich have a greater responsibility to use their money morally than do the poor. The strong have a greater responsibility to use their strength morally than do the weak. And the intelligent have a greater responsibility to be moral people than do the muppets.

 

If you CAN be moral... you MUST be moral. Or... erm... you're immoral.

[Nancy Allen``]

Would acting moral include not judging others, not looking for faults in others and not trying to undermine comments from others?

[Ray Jones]

How would looking for faults, judging others, or undermining comments be an immoral act?

[Nancy Allen``]

Looking for faults? Simple, by looking for things that you can criticise the implication is very strong that you are looking for ways to bring down someone or something, certainly an immoral act. Undermining comments? Much of this has to do with what's known as 'poisoning the well' where some quote might be deemed false or irrelevent where it may in fact be quite pertient. Besides which you don't like it when someone tries and make you appear to be a liar do you? And judging others, or perhaps more importantly pre judging others? Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured for you. Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults unless, of course, you want the same treatment.

[Ray Jones]

Looking for faults? Simple, by looking for things that you can criticise the implication is very strong that you are looking for ways to bring down someone or something, certainly an immoral act.

Criticism does not equal bringing someone down. Criticism does not even relate to negativity. Also, I can live with criticism, or if someone points out errors or faults on my side, heck I am thankful if someone shows me that I've done something wrong. Is a teacher who is correcting his student acting immoral?

 

Undermining comments? Much of this has to do with what's known as 'poisoning the well' where some quote might be deemed false or irrelevent where it may in fact be quite pertient. Besides which you don't like it when someone tries and make you appear to be a liar do you?

Huh? Did you just call me a liar? ^^

 

And judging others, or perhaps more importantly pre judging others? Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured for you.

Prejudging does not imply any possible course of action. I can prejudge someone to be the worst asshat within the whole universe because he's stolen my panty collection and yet help him when he is in need (read: act moral).

[Mike Windu]

@ Ray's quotes:I completely agree. Of course we should. But as we've established then, they can't. Now what that means for us remains the same as evidenced by your statement in that we must protect the ideal of morality in terms of those who are incapable of judging their actions from a moral standpoint.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go wash my pink fur.

[Nancy Allen``]

Huh? Did you just call me a liar? ^^

 

No, and I apologise if there was any indication of that, but there, you see, you don't like the implication which is what undermining comments does.

 

I think there's a world of diffirence between putting across a point of view, even stating that something is wrong, and going "hahahahaha you're ****ing retarded for not having the beliefs I have".

[Ray Jones]

going "hahahahaha you're ****ing retarded for not having the beliefs I have".

While this may not be very kind, it sounds better than "hahahahaha you ****ing die for not having the beliefs I have". Better, if you're just going to ignore it, no harm is done at all.

[Nancy Allen``]

It still isn't a moral comment to make is it?

[Vaelastraz]

It's definitly rude but I also think it depends on what the beliefs are.

[Mike Windu]

Too much semantics, not enough debate!

[Nancy Allen``]

Reading through the thread people for the mathamatical notation of moral objectivism would believe us to live and die by it, yet that's not going to be the case. Example? Iraq, wouldn't the moral thing to do to help the people of Iraq? Oh nonononono we cannot do that, as that would be immoral.

[Windu Chi]

Reading through the thread people for the mathamatical notation of moral objectivism would believe us to live and die by it

I think only the naive will have that kind of stance, Nancy.

Wisdom will suffer if you have such a strong belief like that to any rules, rules will fail eventually, and new rules arise, with new interpretations, from different perspectives of intelligent beings.

Accepting and believing in never changing constants is unwise, I believe Nancy.

Example? Iraq, wouldn't the moral thing to do to help the people of Iraq? Oh nonononono we cannot do that, as that would be immoral.

Well, of course different people with have different opinions, on that question.

Wisdom should be use in making the decision, Nancy.

If we stay there to long I think our military will be become a relying dependent to the Iraqis.

And they probably never stand up on their own.

A 51st state maybe the option in the future, if they don't get their s**t together.

Also they need a airforce, to defend their airspace: fighter jets, bombers, bombs, missiles and up to date high tech bombs, to be a modern airforce power, airfore personnel and logictical support that can kick ass, without the possibility of running out of airforce resourses to quickly.

A complex infrastructure, for basic needs.

 

Also they will require airforce bases, the training of pilots, airforce mechanics, engineers. A army, that is of the high quantity in material equipment like: tanks, vehicles, weapons: missiles, bombs, artillery that is supplied with large resources.

A large quantity of soliders, military personnel to supply logistical support that can protect the whole country from invaders, without the danger of thinning the army resourses to quickly.

 

Also if we leave, the whole thing can go to hell in a handbasket, I believe we are at the fringes of that already, Nancy.

 

Somebody in that society got to get off their ass and become a strong and wise leader, that don't have the motivation of money and power, as their driving influence.

[tk102]

Reading through the thread people for the mathamatical notation of moral objectivism would believe us to live and die by it, yet that's not going to be the case.

wah? Live and die by it?

I have to admit, my goals were less lofty than that. Rather than discover something new about morality, I wanted to gather the known factors of morality and relate them in a form of shorthand. I figured having a formula such as that would be an easy reference guide. At least on paper, if not in practice.

Just trying to help you approach morality in a logical manner.

[Ray Jones]

It still isn't a moral comment to make is it?

No I wouldn't say so. Because it's just a statement about disagreement with another viewpoint. Somewhat uncouth maybe, but the same as "your beliefs don't make sense to me".

[Nancy Allen``]

wah? Live and die by it?

 

See 'Logically arrived at morality is the only morality'. We disagree with the morality of treating women like meat for example, but for Middle Eastern Muslim Islamists it makes logical sense which makes it moral. The same as they may disagree with us allowing women freedom of speech, religion, ect. Are they wrong? Yes we think they are wrong, that's the problem with relying on some bible to morality such as a mathamatical notation, because that one opinion may not nessecarily agree with someone else's established in society's opinion.

[Ray Jones]

These "Middle Eastern Muslim Islamists" do not base their "moral" on logic but ancient texts. And that opinions differ is the very nature of them. But opinions and moral are different things. The moral code is not to do harm unto others and while some may find beating a woman is okay and others might disagree with that because cutting her tongue off would be more appropriate, both "moral acts" are simply unacceptable behaviour. Because it does harm to the woman in question and even worse - violates her dignity as a human and living being.

[Nancy Allen``]

No question that their treatment of women goes against what we consider fair, in fact I'd go further and say they're wrong by any standered. But our standered of morality comes from ancient texts as well, something I'm sure the mathamatical notation of morality would be based on. The trouble is what is considered moral varies greatly between diffirent cultures, or even the same culture. Example? The moral code is not to do harm unto others. Some people may think there are times when doing the right or moral thing makes doing harm unto others necessary. Rescuing some poor girl from the clutches of a religious cult. Helping fend off a gang running a protection racket. Running goons who have taken control of a small town out. Air marshalls gunning down a plane hijacker. Or, one take on it I quite like is 'take Though Shalt not Kill to it's ultimate and you're expected to go down on your knees and pray as someone puts a bullet in the back of your head'. I'm game if you are.

[Ray Jones]

No question that their treatment of women goes against what we consider fair, in fact I'd go further and say they're wrong by any standered.

And you conclude they're wrong because?

 

But our standered of morality comes from ancient texts as well, something I'm sure the mathamatical notation of morality would be based on.

MY morality does not come from ancient texts. The oldest books I know are Jules Verne's. It may EQUAL some moral codes found in different ancient texts, though, simply because "don't do unto others blahblahblah" is a good and quick scheme to approximate a moral way to (re-)act. I think the mathematical notion here was an attempt to describe a logical way to find the best moral way to act despite of all texts and their somewhat fixed set of rules.

 

It's like having a equation y = x² or a table having a set of values y for the possible arguments x. It's nothing more and nothing less. Of course the table just offers a finite set of arguments/values, while the equation offers a universal way to rebuild that very table.

 

In fact to create the table and to find the fixed set of values you need to apply the equation. So if at all, the equation must have been there before any ancient text, not the other way around, because all those texts follow a scheme with their rules.

 

That means at the end of the day you can either (A) consult a book with a set of rules or (B) use the principle which the book's set of rules is based on anyway to find the most moral way to act.

 

The trouble is what is considered moral varies greatly between diffirent cultures, or even the same culture. Example? The moral code is not to do harm unto others. Some people may think there are times when doing the right or moral thing makes doing harm unto others necessary.[/Quote]"whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will destroy life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so" See, Nancy, acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever. But not helping others in need also ain't acting moral. The point is in real life you often face situations where you have to find a way to act as most morally as possible.

 

Rescuing some poor girl from the clutches of a religious cult. Helping fend off a gang running a protection racket. Running goons who have taken control of a small town out. Air marshalls gunning down a plane hijacker.

If possible in any way the most moral way to act would be to help and NOT use violence or at least not use deadly violence to clear the situation. For instance you must not necessarily kill the hijacker in question to put him off "duty". It might not be possible though. But as long as you've at least tried to act non violent or defensive, you've been more moral than if you would just have put a bullet in his head.

 

Or, one take on it I quite like is 'take Though Shalt not Kill to it's ultimate and you're expected to go down on your knees and pray as someone puts a bullet in the back of your head'.

I'd say "Let's just put the prayer stuff aside already, m'kay? Who are you trying to force your beliefs down my throat or what shut face damnit!" And of course I'd try to save myself, especially if I'm about to die anyway. And in case I want to be truly moral from there on, I'd not go and kill the spoothead, even more, I'd have to try to do as less harm to him as possible. However I could imagine to serve him one of those classic one liners I've learned from Arnold when I was a youngling, like "I need your clothes, boots and your motorcycle."

 

Seriously, where does it say that "thou shalt not kill" means "thou shalt not try to save your threatened life"?

 

Ain't it more like "yah mon get your butt out there asap but do me a favour this time try to keep the body count nice and low at zero bro kthxbye" eh?

[Windu Chi]

I think the mathematical notion here was an attempt to describe a logical way to find the best moral way to act despite of all texts and their somewhat fixed set of rules.

When you form a math formula is set with rules when it is written, until it become useless, or need to be corrected when knew knowledge is gain in the future.

The updating of formula seem to be a never ending task.

 

It's like having a equation y = x² or a table having a set of values y for the possible arguments x. It's nothing more and nothing less. Of course the table just offers a finite set of arguments/values, while the equation offers a universal way to rebuild that very table.

You forgot the constant of proportionally y = kx² when you measure relationships, Ray.

constant of proportionally: the experimental determine constant.

 

 

 

See, Nancy, acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever. But not helping others in need also ain't acting moral. The point is in real life you often face situations where you have to find a way to act as most morally as possible.

I disgree, Ray.

In some dire situtations violence must be use if negotiation fails or there is no time for negotiation, to save lives.

So, I don't think it always that black and white.

Every rule even math formulas, will always need revision, and will eventually fail, I believe.

People shouldn't always stay dependent on any rules.

People should use wisdom when putting trust in the stay of rules.

[Ray Jones]

When you form a math formula is set with rules when it is written, until it become useless, or need to be corrected when knew knowledge is gain in the future.[/qUOTE]Err, y = x is not describing a physical law. It's a simple equation, thus does not underlie possible change. It just says y is always square of x.

 

You forgot the constant of proportionally y = kx when you measure relationships, Ray.

No I did forget nothing. First of all it's f(x) = y = ax² + bx + c, second a =1, b = 0, c = 0, thus and third y = x²

 

In some dire situtations violence must be use if negotiation fails or there is no time for negotiation, to save lives.

WRONG. Violence MUST NOT be used. No one is forced to use violence. Not seeing another way, or to prefer using violence over behaving non-violent doesn't make violence necessary. Just because you act violent against the immoral, who is using violence himself, doesn't makes it moral. Reasonable maybe but not moral.

 

So, I don't think it always that black and white.

Yes it is. Use violence - be immoral, don't use violence be less immoral.

 

Every rule even math formulas, will always need revision, and will eventually fail, I believe.

People shouldn't always stay dependent on any rules.

Again, mathematic equations and laws do not underlie changes. A formula describing a physical process maybe, but not the mathematic principles it is based on. One and one is two, period.

[Windu Chi]

Err, y = x is not describing a physical law. It's a simple equation, thus does not underlie possible change. It just says y is always square of x.

I know it is not describing a physical law, Ray.

But when you have functional relationships, there is always a constant of proportionally, because y=x don't work alone, that is a line equation with slope m=1, so y=mx or y=mx+b that form a 45 degree angle respect to the x and y axis, when graph, also b is the y-intercept; in this case b=0.

Now with functional relationships:

To make sense with it, when you graph it; you have to add in a constant of proportionally like k for example: y=kx a directly proportional relationship; solve for k; k=y/x now k is the constant of proportionally.

No I did forget nothing. First of all it's f(x) = y = ax² + bx + c, second a =1, b = 0, c = 0, thus and third y = x²

It still need a constant of proportionally, to scale the function on a graph; that function when graph form a parabola curve, that can be intergrated to find the area if you set limits on it's two curve paths, from the vertex.

 

WRONG. Violence MUST NOT be used.

It's not always simple as that, Ray.

No one is forced to use violence.

I know that!

Not seeing another way, or to prefer using violence over behaving non-violent doesn't make violence necessary.

Sometimes it's not another way, like when the clock is constantly ticking, warning you that the situation is becoming desperate.

Just because you act violent against the immoral, who is using violence himself, doesn't makes it moral. Reasonable maybe but not moral.

Ok, Ray we aren't going to come to agreement on this.

So, forget it!

 

 

Again, mathematic equations and laws do not underlie changes. A formula describing a physical process maybe, but not the mathematic principles it is based on. One and one is two, period.

It's not that simple Ray!

 

But forget it!

[Nancy Allen``]

Clearly it's wrong because it puts the woman through harm and suffering, it's degrading. Imagine pouring hog fat on Muslim Islamists and what that would do to their sensitivities. It's the same thing.

 

I suppose actions taken some sixty years ago to stop a war would be classed as immoral, though then again the fact that we are still here, and not subject to being hunted down by execution squads because we do not fall under some updated view of imperfection, seems to suggest the alternative to violence was not that rosy.

 

In terms of not acting violently, have you heard of the Nigerian scam? Chances are people have try to sucker you into it, the long and short end is that you get a letter from Saddam's wife, for example, promising millions in lost treasure if you send a small donation of something like ten thousand dollars. A group of people, normal people who are not prone to violence like some questionably balenced ex Vietnam vets might be went over to Nigeria to investigate. They were killed. Which suggests to me that the choice between not acting violently and defending your own life or the lives or others is no choice at all.

 

Combine 'acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever' with 'Though Shalt Not Kill' and the ruling appears that you cannot even defend your own life. Now as it pretains to my morality or lack of it, I ask myself all the time whether or not supporting violence, Israel's right to exist for example or wiping out terrorist operations in Afghanistan, is the right thing to do. I haven't gotten an answer yet, haven't seen any sign of me being evil in that regard. So until I do get some type of answer I'm assuming that I don't need to change.

 

With no one being forced to use violence, here's a classic example. Thugs on the rampage, no one lifting a finger to stop them despite what they do. Any attempt to try and fix the peoblem has only made things worse, not only do the police not do anything there are severe reprocussions from the gang because they were called. Now being scarred off with violence or the threat of violence will fix the problem, but oh, that would be immoral. What about pride? What about being able to walk the streets safely? I'd rather be dead than live in a world where people like that are allowed to act however they want, and I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way.