Political Theory

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:17:59 GMT

Could you do an easy one first? Like "murder is wrong"?

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Justin Spahr-Summers — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:01:08 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
How do you determine this objective morality?

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

An answer to this would require a full elucidation of a theory of objective ethics, so it'll have to be deferred for now.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:44:31 GMT

How do you determine this objective morality?

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

yuberries — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:05 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Justin Spahr-Summers:
Because man is fallible, he has to choose the course that he finds to be right, as justified by his moral code and his reason.

Exactly. This is subject to the individuals perception of the "real". How can that be universal?

I don't think that's relevant Mr. Larose. I mean, moral objectivists have no objection (objectivist objections, ha... ha.) that a thief may have a different perception of what constitutes theft, and it still doesn't nullify their natural or universal moral code...

A blind man would be no less guilty of pulling the trigger and killing someone, or a sleep-walking man, uh... shooting people... I can only think of lame examples at the moment

Forgive me if I'm wrong Mr. Summers

Edit: Aw what the hell, I type so slow that you've answered yourself while I was typing.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Justin Spahr-Summers — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:54:23 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
Justin Spahr-Summers:
Because man is fallible, he has to choose the course that he finds to be right, as justified by his moral code and his reason.

Exactly. This is subject to the individuals perception of the "real". How can that be universal?

Because the principles are universal, grounded in concrete reality. Each actor has to assess the circumstances and choose according to the limits of his knowledge and cognitive ability.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:19:55 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:
Because man is fallible, he has to choose the course that he finds to be right, as justified by his moral code and his reason.

Exactly. This is subject to the individuals perception of the "real". How can that be universal?

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Justin Spahr-Summers — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:40:25 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
But it is impossible, barring omniscience, to consider all things instantly, which would result in a perfect logic.

This would be required to make perfect judgements, which would be necessary to claim anything will be always right or wrong given any set of circumstances, from the perspective of anything involved.

Ethics deals with defining moral principles, which are objective and universal in nature. When we have to apply those principles to a real-world scenario, perfect judgments are not required. Because man is fallible, he has to choose the course that he finds to be right, as justified by his moral code and his reason.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:50:33 GMT

But it is impossible, barring omniscience, to consider all things instantly, which would result in a perfect logic.

This would be required to make perfect judgements, which would be necessary to claim anything will be always right or wrong given any set of circumstances, from the perspective of anything involved.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

demosthenes — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:07:35 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:
If we assume a society where everyone believes that ethics is subjective, it's possible that the sociopathic members of such a society could end up outnumbering the sane ones. Does this mean that murder will and should be condoned?

We DO live in a society of subjective ethics, and the sociopathic members already outnumber the sane members, at least in terms of firepower. People condone murder every day. We already live in your hypothetical society where everyone holds their own subjective code of ethics.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Justin Spahr-Summers — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:16:17 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
Yeah man, Mises took care of it already.

I think this is the same line of thinking that led to Rand's vehement opposition to subjective value theory.

People do value different things (subjective value theory), yes, but this has no bearing on whether they actually should morally value XYZ (objective ethics).

Stated differently: individuals hold different ends, but this says nothing about their validity one way or the other. Just because individuals have different ends does not mean that we can't analyze those ends. Mises would say otherwise, but that's the whole root of the disagreement between objective and subjective ethicists.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:10:53 GMT

Yeah man, Mises took care of it already.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Justin Spahr-Summers — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:05:41 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
Justin Spahr-Summers:
Engineering requires objective precision. Regardless of how we perceive such precision, it is an objective necessity.

It is in relation to an "if-then" that it is a requirement. There must be a desired (subjective) end for that statement to make sense.

Okay, which is something I plan to address with the forthcoming thoughts I mentioned in my last post. For now, it'll hopefully suffice to say that you didn't include that in your criticism of objectivity.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:56:13 GMT

Justin Spahr-Summers:
Engineering requires objective precision. Regardless of how we perceive such precision, it is an objective necessity.

It is in relation to an "if-then" that it is a requirement. There must be a desired (subjective) end for that statement to make sense.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Justin Spahr-Summers — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:51:01 GMT

Jackson LaRose:
The whole stated position of an objective anything is ridiculous, because even by the act of observation, the observed is subject to our perception of it, every thought is subject to our thinking process. If the objective exists, it is impossible to fully understand it, no matter how much thinking you do about it!

Engineering requires objective precision. Regardless of how we perceive such precision, it is an objective necessity.

Just based on what you said, there's no reason why ethics can't be similarly objective.

P.S. (to others), I've been reworking my theory of objective ethics, because I realized I was missing a lot of ground and having to concede a lot of points (which is why I ultimately ducked out of the thread). I'll hopefully have something to show for it in the near future; get your criticism cannons ready.

Re: The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:42:36 GMT

This a pretty long thread, I've read a few (random) pages from it, so forgive me if I'm repeating a formerly stated position.

The whole stated position of an objective anything is ridiculous, because even by the act of observation, the observed is subject to our perception of it, every thought is subject to our thinking process. If the objective exists, it is impossible to fully understand it, no matter how much thinking you do about it!

Of course, you may be satisfied to accept the majority's concept of reality, but just because in a blind taste test, people prefer Pepsi to Coca-Cola 2 to 1, doesn't mean it's true that Pepsi tastes better.

The best you can do is enter the realm of interaction without presuppositions of objective morality, and let the market determine what the best path should be.