Dreamviews philosophy subforum sucks balls (so let's talk meta-ethics)

Why does this subforum suck so hard? Honestly, nearly every single goddamn thread sounds like a pondering a stoner could come up with or asks for an opinion, or contains largely opinions with a lack of rigorous justification, and practically no threads discuss any academic philosophical problems.

So anyway, let's discuss the sexiness that is moral error theory, which basically makes the claim that all positive moral claims are false.

According to moral error theory:

"Killing babies is morally permissible" is false.
"Eating animals is wrong" is false.
"Altruism is good" is false.

"Killing babies is not wrong" however is a negative moral claim, so it isn't necessarily false. It could be true or false.

One major objection to moral error theory is that this leads to contradictions.

According to moral error theory, "killing babies is morally permissible" is false. And "killing babies is wrong" is false. That would make the opposite claim true, i.e. "killing babies is not wrong" is true. This is linguistically equivalent to saying "killing babies is morally permissible" is true. But, fuck, we started out this argument by saying that very statement is false. This contradiction means moral error theory is shitty, right?

WRONG-O, turns out that objection is invalid.

"That which is not wrong is morally permissible" is a positive moral claim, so under moral error theory this statement would be false. That means "killing babies is not wrong" is not logically equivalent to saying "killing babies is morally permissible." So there is no contradiction, and moral error theory stands hard as a rock.

Discuss.

Firstly I think you're comparison between stoner conversation and this sub-forum already reveals your narrow mindedness. It appears you don't like subjects that challenge fundamental assumptions. In fact the entire format of your thread is very sophist.

For instance, you have not sufficiently explained why moral error theory is a valid concept to begin with. Shouldn't you at least go into greater detail as to why moral error theory makes that claim? I don't see the purpose in discussing whether or not moral error theory is paradoxical if I don't even know why it warrants discussion on its own.

I'm at best some sort of Humean, stoic, evolutionary ethicist and at worst a complete epistemological relativist. I can't even converse with you on the subject of moral error theory from the parameters you have set because true and false are not terms I would utilize when discussing morals. So it appears you've had the same effect on me that this subforum's stoner conversation material has had on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Firstly I think you're comparison between stoner conversation and this sub-forum already reveals your narrow mindedness. It appears you don't like subjects that challenge fundamental assumptions. In fact the entire format of your thread is very sophist.

For instance, you have not sufficiently explained why moral error theory is a valid concept to begin with. Shouldn't you at least go into greater detail as to why moral error theory makes that claim? I don't see the purpose in discussing whether or not moral error theory is paradoxical if I don't even know why it warrants discussion on its own.

I'm at best some sort of Humean, stoic, evolutionary ethicist and at worst a complete epistemological relativist. I can't even converse with you on the subject of moral error theory from the parameters you have set because true and false are not terms I would utilize when discussing morals. So it appears you've had the same effect on me that this subforum's stoner conversation material has had on you.

---

The stoner comment was specifically inserted to troll stoners. Looks like I ruffled your feathers, there. As for your second sentence: holy shit! A philosophy thread that wants to discuss whether an assumed framework is consistent?! We can't have that, as that is clearly not philosophy. Oh wait yes it is.

I made this thread to talk to people who already know what moral error theory is. Here's a general summary that you could've looked up on your own, with a reference to an entire paper which I don't currently have the time to summarize (maybe some time next week though). The point of this thread is to see whether my objection to the contradiction objection is sound, not to discuss the merits of moral error theory.

You haven't defined what a positive claim is. I have a feeling that either the concept is inconsistent, or else a proper definition trivialises the whole thing; but I'll let you respond of course.

To suggest an answer based on the examples you gave though, positive moral statements are all of the form "X is good" or "X is bad". 'Wrong' and 'permissible' are two antonyms. That is to say, synonyms. Contrariwise.

Is that true?

But then it seems that negative moral statements are of the form "X is not good", but then semantically this seems like it should be equivalent to "X is bad", which is a positive moral statement.

Having no idea what a moral error theory is, I innocently clicked on this thread and - as I read your original post and tried to interpret what it means - I realized I walked into a grammar nazi orgy and got surprised from behind. Why do you want to make me Google a new term this early in the morning? I mean, granted, its not a Monday, and I've even already had some coffee

But, day-um.

Your feathers were rustled first, before anyone else because evidently you don"t like hippies :> I'm sorry. And then you jumped on someone else because they looked at what you posted, scratched their head, and no doubt said, WTF. :D

Thank you for the laugh, happy Thursday to you, from a hippie. Who is still going WTF lol.

Now that we've had the obligatory upset hippie, let's continue.

I read the section of the Wikipedia article you linked, Abra. The second argument in particular interests me, as it operates against moral universalism. I must state that I know little about moral error theory beyond what I read in that article, but I can say that the argument made there seems to me to be circumvented by moral relativism, in as much as it allows for real moral claims without congruity across all people. Although perhaps that's exactly the point that I'm missing.

As a side note, I feel like the world would be a much happier place is more people had a genuine understanding of meta-ethical moral relativism and its normative implications.

I'm clueless as to why you think I was upset. I wasn't. I was merely attempting to explain that trying to confine conversations to specific courses taught in philosophy class is a poor style of philosophy, in my opinion. This thread simply stinks of elitist pseudo-intellectualism and frankly the OP came off snobbish. But again, just because I see no value in OP's attitude regarding what warrants philosophical discussion, that doesn't mean I was upset. Xei explained my problem with the OP more thoroughly than I could. Now that I've read a little on moral error theory, let me explain my problem that I just sort of vaguely mentioned originally. It's not that all moral claims are false, it's simply that no moral claim is true. Whether it's a positive one or not, it's not true. But that doesn't make it false. It comes down to simple epistemology. Claims are interpretations of reality, and can never represent reality with complete accuracy. Any position aside from moral skepticism appears ridiculous once you consider the fact that words can't even define reality to begin with, let alone right and wrong.

As I've said before, true skepticism is not cynicism regarding obscure claims. It requires a disbelief in even the most basic knowledge. And it requires one to see past true and false. Even if such things as universal morals did exist somehow, none of us can possibly know what they are, we will still continue to justify our actions based upon our unique model of reality. And I agree with supernova, if we took some time to realize this we could solve a lot of disagreements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

You haven't defined what a positive claim is. I have a feeling that either the concept is inconsistent, or else a proper definition trivialises the whole thing; but I'll let you respond of course.

To suggest an answer based on the examples you gave though, positive moral statements are all of the form "X is good" or "X is bad". 'Wrong' and 'permissible' are two antonyms. That is to say, synonyms. Contrariwise.

Is that true?

But then it seems that negative moral statements are of the form "X is not good", but then semantically this seems like it should be equivalent to "X is bad", which is a positive moral statement.

---

I am still trying to figure out what constitutes a positive moral claim myself. Because if it is just a statement which positively attributes a moral quality to some action or thing, then it seems that "that which is not good is bad" is a positive moral claim, being positive in that it is claiming something has the moral attribute of being bad, which under moral error theory would be false. So they are not logically synonymous, though intuition makes us think they are. Still waiting on someone from my uni to get back to me on this (what exactly constitutes a positive moral claim), was trying to see if anyone on Dreamviews had a clue.

I think moral error theory is awesome, so I'm trying to defend it by refuting an objection. Of course, I want to see if there's something wrong with my formulation. The only error I could see is that making positive moral claims about moral terms is somehow different than making positive moral claims about actions and non-moral things, but I can't see any relevant difference besides "one is a moral term and the other is not," and blasting my argument based on that difference alone would be a pretty unfounded blast, more like a squirt.

I also think that "killing babies is wrong" is false, but "I believe killing babies is wrong" is true, granted that is what I actually believe. When I add "I believe" to it, it paints moral claims as a desired state of affairs that I have. But saying "killing babies is wrong" universally, or in general, is false. I will probably make a thread on moral error theory and/or subjective relativism in general once I figure the positive moral claim thing out.

:facepalm: Sometimes, all it takes is a little Captain Picard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

blah blah irrelevant blah

Xei explained my problem with the OP more thoroughly than I could. Now that I've read a little on moral error theory, let me explain my problem that I just sort of vaguely mentioned originally. It's not that all moral claims are false, it's simply that no moral claim is true. Whether it's a positive one or not, it's not true. But that doesn't make it false. It comes down to simple epistemology. Claims are interpretations of reality, and can never represent reality with complete accuracy. Any position aside from moral skepticism appears ridiculous once you consider the fact that words can't even define reality to begin with, let alone right and wrong.

---

This leads to irrefutable contradiction, tho, which is why most peeps have altered the original formulation such that all positive moral claims are false, rather than all moral claims.

Also, it appears you don't believe in the law of excluded middle.

And you believe moral claims are not truth-apt.

But you only need one of these beliefs to state a position.

Are you a skeptic of all knowledge, or just moral knowledge? Also, you've assumed quite a lot about me from this thread, and a lot of what you've assumed is false. I am a moral skeptic, that doesn't mean I can't discuss a viewpoint that is gnostic. In fact, it shows I have the opposite of a narrow-mind.

@blackbirdrising: I am a stoner and a pacifist vegetarian. I guess that'd make me a hippie. I like to berate myself in my own threads. :3

>inb4 you can't be a moral skeptic and claim every positive moral claim is false

I don't have a good argument right now for why moral skepticism holds equal ground as moral error theory in my mind, but the gist of it is that it does not make sense to attribute things with "good" or "bad" in the first place (try to give me a logical argument that concludes with "X is bad" and I will show you an illegal move, or at least a move that requires further justification). So anything that claims something is good or bad is false, because nothing is good or bad.

Also, we can't "know for sure" if any given negative moral claim is true.

But I guess claiming to know that nothing can have the attribute of being good or bad is different from claiming it is unprovable that something is good or bad. Practically, I agree with moral error theory. Epistemologically, I am forced to agree with moral skepticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

Why does this subforum suck so hard? Honestly, nearly every single goddamn thread sounds like a pondering a stoner could come up with or asks for an opinion, or contains largely opinions with a lack of rigorous justification, and practically no threads discuss any academic philosophical problems.

So anyway, let's discuss the sexiness that is moral error theory, which basically makes the claim that all positive moral claims are false.

According to moral error theory:

"Killing babies is morally permissible" is false.
"Eating animals is wrong" is false.
"Altruism is good" is false.

"Killing babies is not wrong" however is a negative moral claim, so it isn't necessarily false. It could be true or false.

One major objection to moral error theory is that this leads to contradictions.

According to moral error theory, "killing babies is morally permissible" is false. And "killing babies is wrong" is false. That would make the opposite claim true, i.e. "killing babies is not wrong" is true. This is linguistically equivalent to saying "killing babies is morally permissible" is true. But, fuck, we started out this argument by saying that very statement is false. This contradiction means moral error theory is shitty, right?

WRONG-O, turns out that objection is invalid.

"That which is not wrong is morally permissible" is a positive moral claim, so under moral error theory this statement would be false. That means "killing babies is not wrong" is not logically equivalent to saying "killing babies is morally permissible." So there is no contradiction, and moral error theory stands hard as a rock.

Discuss.

---

what

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

what

---

read the rest of the thread, mrak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

This leads to irrefutable contradiction, tho, which is why most peeps have altered the original formulation such that all positive moral claims are false, rather than all moral claims.

Also, it appears you don't believe in the law of excluded middle.

And you believe moral claims are not truth-apt.

But you only need one of these beliefs to state a position.

Are you a skeptic of all knowledge, or just moral knowledge? Also, you've assumed quite a lot about me from this thread, and a lot of what you've assumed is false. I am a moral skeptic, that doesn't mean I can't discuss a viewpoint that is gnostic. In fact, it shows I have the opposite of a narrow-mind.

@blackbirdrising: I am a stoner and a pacifist vegetarian. I guess that'd make me a hippie. I like to berate myself in my own threads. :3

---

Right, like I said in my first post in this thread, I am at best a Humean, stoic, evolutionary ethicist and at worst a complete epistemological relativist. I do not believe it is within human capacity to have knowledge, and confusing a belief with knowledge leads to the same problems as universal moralism. The claim makes sense that if you have two contradictory ideas, one must be true and the other must be false. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I know. I can't say for certain which is true and which is false. I'm not trying to include a middle, I'm merely aware of the fact that I know nothing. Claims cannot be ruled true or false by any amount of logic or reasoning. They can at best be labeled probable or improbable, and even that is pushing it.

I'd say because all philosophy besides science is as boring as hell (and not really existent). Any claims about morals really have to talk about them in relation to the goals they serve such as satisfying empathy, providing safe environments, and maximizing productive prosperity.

You argument in favor of a science is an epistemological argument in the first place. Philosophy remains relevant. Good day.

Hence, me saying all philosophy besides science. lol

...And epistemology, apparently.

besides science, yes.

Are you trolling? This sounds like something I'd say if I were trolling.

Prove me wrong.

Prove what wrong? You just made an epistemological argument that all philosophy which isn't science (including epistemology) is irrelevant. Do you not understand the face-palm here?

All of the topics under the modern study of "Philosophy" (like the nature of objects, casualty, determinism/indeterminism, mental states, and brain-experience relation) are only really asking questions dealt with by science.

Do you even know what epistemology means?

It's the study of how we should define and obtain "knowledge". A good evidence-based scientific method seems to lead to the most beautiful, useful, and interesting outcomes. Doesn't seem like there's any other "epistemology" of obtaining knowledge worth spending time on. I'm not really sure how other people try to define "knowledge" but I only see it making sense as the most evidence-supported claims, and not exactly what's "true" in any absolute sense.

You are making an argument about what knowledge is useful and what isn't, and on what type of thinking is useful and what isn't. Epistemological relativism is the argument that all knowledge depends upon unproven posits, including scientific knowledge. By the very fact that I can even make an argument in return to yours that you cannot prove scientifically gathered knowledge is more true than any other information, I prove the point that science is not the end of philosophical thinking.

Yeah, obviously not the end; that was boring as hell. :P

Evidence is simply the only thing we have to guide us.

Depending on how you define evidence, I could agree with that. It also depends on how you define "guide." Science is still merely one tool-kit available, and there's no proof it's the only worth-while tool-kit that can stand up to epistemological relativism. Whatever you think about abstract truth, you are claiming that the argument "science is the only worthwhile philosophy" (paraphrased) is true. You are claiming it's true that science is better than non-science. There is no proof of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You are claiming it's true that science is better than non-science. There is no proof of this.

---

Why do you need evidence?

My argument is that there is no evidence that can make something true. My argument is that we believe things, but we don't believe true things. You believe that science is the only relevant philosophy. But believing it doesn't make it true, nor matter how logical. You can claim you're disinterested in abstract truth all you want, but you just made a claim for an abstract truth. And there isn't a reason behind the reason behind the reason for that claim. In the end all, all evidence is circular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

My argument is that there is no evidence that can make something true. My argument is that we believe things, but we don't believe true things. You believe that science is the only relevant philosophy. But believing it doesn't make it true, nor matter how logical.

---

I agree, science never claims to possess absolute "truth". It just seems to be the only way toward sensible objective descriptions of whatever experience is and whatever it is experiencing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You can claim you're disinterested in abstract truth all you want, but you just made a claim for an abstract truth.

---

What do you mean by abstract "truth"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

And there isn't a reason behind the reason behind the reason for that claim. In the end all, all evidence is circular.

---

Explain this differently please?

Well, if you claim to know that a particular epistemological doctrine is correct, that's circular.

Why can't you just know it intuitively? We're kind of all born scientists in a way. We develop a feel for what's functionally true based on the weight of evidence, scientists just continue to explore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wayfaerer

why do you need evidence?

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

So anyway, let's discuss the sexiness that is moral error theory, which basically makes the claim that all positive moral claims are false.

According to moral error theory:

"Killing babies is morally permissible" is false.
"Eating animals is wrong" is false.
"Altruism is good" is false.

"Killing babies is not wrong" however is a negative moral claim, so it isn't necessarily false. It could be true or false.

One major objection to moral error theory is that this leads to contradictions.

According to moral error theory, "killing babies is morally permissible" is false. And "killing babies is wrong" is false. That would make the opposite claim true, i.e. "killing babies is not wrong" is true. This is linguistically equivalent to saying "killing babies is morally permissible" is true. But, fuck, we started out this argument by saying that very statement is false. This contradiction means moral error theory is shitty, right?

WRONG-O, turns out that objection is invalid.

"That which is not wrong is morally permissible" is a positive moral claim, so under moral error theory this statement would be false. That means "killing babies is not wrong" is not logically equivalent to saying "killing babies is morally permissible." So there is no contradiction, and moral error theory stands hard as a rock.

Discuss.

---

Well, if I look at reality I see what this philosophy is saying. It is saying basically that morals are not true inherently. Each person individually and society as a whole designates truth to morals. I would like to believe that there is some true objective morality that everybody should follow (and it should be my morality ;) ) but the fact is that it seems morality is subjective. It seems that everybody decides what is right for them, and tries to impose that onto everyone else. So the fact is that morality is subjective, and thus not true in the philosophical sense.

If we get hung up on the words it leads to contradictions. That is why philosophy has to be grounded in direct experience of reality. That is why in reality there is no contradiction. Nobody is saying you should go kill babies. This is just a statement of reality... obviously some people feel that it is moral to kill babies.

A positive moral claim would be saying "X is good" is true. For something to be true, in the philosophical sense, it has to be objective and inherently real, like a law of nature like gravity or something, or the speed of light. But since morals are not objective, they are empty of substance, empty of any coherent definable agreed upon ultimate reality, morality is empty. No moral statement is objectively inherently true. There might be a situation where it is morally acceptable to kill a baby, like to save a hundred babies lives somehow.

My cognitive apparatus tells me that things with mass are pulled down to Earth. My brain tells me that the sense data I'm receiving is to be interpreted as an object falling downwards.

My cognitive apparatus tells me that killing babies is wrong. My brain tells me that the sense data I'm receiving is to be interpreted as a moral violation.

What's the difference?

The emptiness philosophies can really deconstruct our preconceived assumptions as to what is 'true' and 'false'. Even these concepts of 'true & false' are deconstructed. In order to stay grounded we avoid the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism. When looked at in this light, we see that morality and immorality are both empty, dependent on many conditions to exist, and there is no tangible or unchanging morality. Any moral claim is 'false' because if we analyze it we find that it is empty. But to claim the opposite is true is also false because the opposite is also 'empty' of inherent reality. To claim one or the other is true would be to err into either of the two extremes of eternalism or nihilism.

Not sure that that answers the question.

Your question? Isn't your cognitive apparatus the same as your brain? What is the difference? I am not sure I understand the question, but if I do: What ever you decide is moral is what you decide is moral. But that doesn't make it 'true' or 'false'. It is what feels right for you and that is great, but it is empty of inherent meaning, no matter what your cognitive apparatus is. The cognitive apparatus and the brain and babies, etc... all empty. So... there is no difference. But there is no relavence either. Just avoid the extreme views of nihilism and eternalism and do what feels right. Gravity, mass, earth, objects falling, philosophy, it is all empty. Any connections of meaning or difference in meaning is also empty and arbitrary and even if it is rich in meaning perhaps the meaning does not go past this present moment and is not inherent in there being a difference or correspondence between your two statements. If you think there is a difference or if there isn't a difference, it doesn't ultimately matter for what you think or what I think are empty of meaning. So....

That being said, on a relative level morality and physics are different as well... What if I had the power to rescue either only one baby or 99 babies from a burning building? I think it would be moral to let the one die to rescue the 99. Morality is empty. It isn't constant.

I don't know if that answers your question?

Well, in the post before I asked the question, you said that truth could be asserted of physical laws, but not moral laws. I was asking why the difference.

I never said that truth can be asserted of physical laws and that does not represent my view. Physical laws are just as empty as moral laws.

Edit: Oh that reference to gravity and the speed of light. Yes, I misspoke, those are empty as well. They are not free-standing inherently existent independently. Gravity depends on mass, for example. Light is a transient continuum of particle waves... etc....

But there still is a relative difference between physical laws and moral laws.
And now your question makes sense to me, and it is an interesting question now.
It depends on what relevance you give subjectivity in comparison to objectivity
or if you have a non-dual view.
If you have a subjective solipsist view, then there is no difference.
If you have a materialist view then gravity is a law of physics while morality is a convention of society.
If you have a nondual view, they are both interdependent and are united but different.
I am getting sleepy, don't know if I am articulating this well.