quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm not questioning whether they're valid or not - I'm questioning whether they can be counted as axioms - the building blocks of a moral system. Because they're vulnerable to the "Why?" question, just as the Theory of Relativity is, they aren't axiomatic.
When you're discussing philosophy, at least, the word axiom is defined as follows (third definition in the OED):
quote:‘A self-evident proposition, requiring no formal demonstration to prove its truth, but received and assented to as soon as mentioned’ (Hutton).
Neither your propositions, nor the theory of relativty fit this description, because they aren't immediately self-evident.
So what you’re saying is that this thread is pointless (i.e. worthless), and along with it, the Theory of Relativity? If you reject the epistemological validity of building a theory starting with axioms, then anything I can say on this thread might look at most hilarious to you. I’m “defending” here my “axiomatic basis” for a “Moral (objective) System”. I have no argument against something like “your endeavor is invalid”. For me, “this endeavor is valid” is an AXIOM. Or maybe it is a “meta-axiom”. A true one (by Hutton’s definition).
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'd also like to point out, that, as my earlier post suggests, there are very good reasons to believe that morality falls into a different epistemological catagory from the natural sciences, and thus comparisions between how we gain knowledge of the natural world (from the scientific method) and how we gain knowledge of morality are invalid. I doubt we can gain knowledege about morality from observing the world in the same way we can gain knowledge about physics by observing falling apples
Ok, so you do make a distinction between natural sciences and morality. I would agree to that (i.e. there is a distinction) too. That is why “morality” is so “hard”. Yet, I stand by my meta-axiom.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Might I suggest the axiom (I am totally ripping this off from John Stuart Mill):
"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"
and
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."
You can hash and define "self-protection" all you want, but its a principle I think can be worked off of.
You have my vote for those axioms
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also I am not including children yet in my question of morality as children complicate things. I consider children the responsibility of their parents until they are of age and as such do not have the same rights adults have until they come of age. (not interested in stating how old "of age" is.)
The concept of “of age” is quite interesting for me. Why do people think it has anything to do with a certain age? We’ve already noticed that there are no “equal circumstances”. Society defined an arbitrary “age range” for certain “rights”. You can drive/drink/marry/etc only if you’re at leas X years old. Why? Why not set some (less arbitrary) standards related with the abilities of each person? I see at least two essential requirements needed: 1) proving the ability to “act” (i.e. the associated knowledge, physical abilities etc) 2) proving the ability to take the responsibility for his/hers actions Neither of the two are related to a specific age. Nor are they perpetual once that they are acquired.
What I’m trying to say here is that maturity is not strictly related to age. It’s about education and self-responsibility.
posted
I'm going to have to go with suminonA on this one. Our society just kind of draws a line in the sand as far as age limits go. While this is probably necessary for consistancy's sake, I don't know that coming of age & maturity would be so uniform enough across the board that we could call it axiomatic.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: So what you’re saying is that this thread is pointless (i.e. worthless), and along with it, the Theory of Relativity? If you reject the epistemological validity of building a theory starting with axioms, then anything I can say on this thread might look at most hilarious to you.
suminonA - I think you're misunderstanding my point. I am a *defender* of objective morality, and believe it exists. I also think that one can develop a system of morality from axioms which are self-evident in the same way logical axioms is self-evident.
But I don't think that the statements you put forth as axioms are actually axioms. This doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily true - just that they aren't things we can take as axiomatic in order to build the foundations of a moral system. This is analogous to the Theory of Relativity - it is in all probability true, but it's not axiomatic - instead its validity rests on other, more fundamental principles of physics.
A stronger candidate for a moral axiom than the ones you suggest would be, for example, Tom's statement on the first page of this thread: "harm is bad." If all parties agree that is axiomatic, then it gives us a place to start - which may then lead to the conclusion that some (or all) of the statements your propose are, in fact, true.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
“harm is bad” sounds good but we must first define “harm” … What is “harm” for one, might be “pleasure” for others (e.g. the hunting). Then there is the “principle” that “minimizing harm is good” but that is even harder to “implement”, because not only “harm” is yet undefined, but who is to say that “harming one person” is better that “harming (less) 100 persons” ?
So even while I agree that “harm is bad” and that “minimizing harm is good”, I don’t think that they are too useful at an Objective level (because they are by definition Subjective).
That is why I proposed some axioms that, while not being “the most basic imaginable”, are there to form a base of a Moral System (because they have to be "validated" at an Objective level). I understand that you “reject” them not because they might be “not true” but because you hope to find a more “fine base” underlying them.
We still wait for propositions, that is why we’re having this conversation
And at the end, I’m sorry but I want to defend the Theory of Relativity as being based on the (two) most BASIC axioms that Physics ever had. The principle of relativity (“physical phenomena are identical in any inertial frame of reference”) and the principle of constant velocity of light in vacuum do not rely on any other “more fundamental principles”. And again I say, the fact that they are “counterintuitive” at first glance (taken together) doesn’t stop the Theory based on them explain in detail more than Newtonian Physics ever could.
A.
PS: The biggest obstacle in our development are the things we already take for granted.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:“harm is bad” sounds good but we must first define “harm”
Luckily, definitions are not axioms. And there's already a commonly-accepted definition of "harm."
Hunting does not give this axiom any trouble, as the obvious "harm" of a dead animal may be considered more or less harmful than the "harm" of a bored person by various individuals.
What I think is fascinating is that you consider "harm is bad" excessively subjective, when it is in reality the root of Objectivism.
In my first post in this thread, I strongly recommended that people read some basic philosophy before continuing. I suggest that to you again.
quote:I’m sorry but I want to defend the Theory of Relativity as being based on the (two) most BASIC axioms that Physics ever had.
See, again, you're using the word "axiom" incorrectly. Physics is based on the axiom "if something happens, it has an effect."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there's already a commonly-accepted definition of "harm."
What is it? I have a hunch that whatever definition you are thinking of is not going to be that commonly-accepted....
You could say "harm is something bad" and I think most people would accept that, but that makes "Harm is bad" into a useless axiom. All that would mean is that bad is bad, which tells us nothing.
What morality is concerned with is not whether harm is bad, but rather what qualifies as harmful and bad, or what qualifies as good.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's so great about "objective" morality?
I haven't closely read this thread, but I haven't seen much discussion of that question beyond Karled's initial post. He said that in order for us to justifiably impose a morality, it needs to be objective.
Why? It seems to me that in order to be justified in imposing a morality, the imposition merely needs to be justified by the morality itself. Ie, my moral system includes the command to impose my moral system.
If by "objective" you mean something everyone can agree to, that will never happen. How people develop and view their morality is far too personal and individual, in the same way as taste in art is.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Luckily, definitions are not axioms. And there's already a commonly-accepted definition of "harm."
Really? Please provide one here. And then, apply it to these two (hypothetical) situations:
1) My dog likes to run outside. That’s ok. It also likes to jump all over the couch. That’s ok too. But then, after running in the mud on a rainy day, it is not allowed to enter the house, even less to jump all over the couch. Yet it does not have enough “reason” to see this my way, so I have to teach it “the lesson” by means of prise/punishment. I acknowledge that the physical punishment is a form of (physical) harm but I have to apply it to teach the dog this particular lesson. Is it ok for me to “harm” my dog this way? (I say it is)
2) My daughter likes to talk to other people and learn all she can from them. But I’m worried that she might get “the wrong influence” of some particular friends of hers so I forbid her to see and/or talk to them. She is upset and defies my wish, therefore I have to keep her at home, and send her to a very strict school where I’m sure she will get the “right” education. I cannot accept to see her “harmed” by the “wrong influence”. So she has to obey and at age 20 she leaves school (and home) knowing only what I consider that “it is right”. So she will inevitably meet other people who will notice her naiveté and ignorance and will take advantage of her. At that point I realise that I "prevented harm" while she was young, but she is now suffering because I have truncated the available information, and now it is way too late to REPARE that. So, was it ok for me to do that ? (I say no).
This is the kind of argument I raise when someone tells me that objectively “harm is bad”.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hunting does not give this axiom any trouble, as the obvious "harm" of a dead animal may be considered more or less harmful than the "harm" of a bored person by various individuals.
Are you a hunter by vocation? I see your statement as very demeaning for the “dead animals”. Why is your boredom more “harmful” than the loosing of some wild animal life? I personally don’t get it. By the way, did you know that there was a time where an entire “race” of people was considered just “as good as any other animal”? Please don’t take this personally, I’m making a general point here, to show that depending on our “absolute definitions” we might get to justify despicable things/acts.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I think is fascinating is that you consider "harm is bad" excessively subjective, when it is in reality the root of Objectivism.
In my first post in this thread, I strongly recommended that people read some basic philosophy before continuing. I suggest that to you again
Are you talking about this Objectivism ? I didn’t notice where is this “harm is bad” at its root … I have to admit that I do not have an exhaustive knowledge about “basic philosophy” so if you find relevant references on the points you are making, some links would be quite helpful. Thanks.
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: See, again, you're using the word "axiom" incorrectly. Physics is based on the axiom "if something happens, it has an effect."
Well, if you asked me, “if something happens, it has an effect” is not “at the base” of the postulates of the Theory of Relativity. Can you prove otherwise? (If you say that the “axiom” you are suggesting is not necessarily at the base of those particular postulates, but at the base of “physics in general” then you’re saying that the Theory of Relativity is just not included in Physics…)
Yet, it is an interesting “axiom” if applied to “beliefs”. I mean: If I believe (in) something, does it really exist? I might argue that “the effect” of its existence is my belief. I might even say that I don’t need to “see” something “happen” to have my belief. So, what is this “axiom” leading to?
quote:Originally posted by Foust: What's so great about "objective" morality?
Objective Morality would be great for people living in a (wide and rational) society. “Morality/Ethics” is, as you say, personal. But when an Objective Moral System is set up, those who chose NOT to live by it are free to go and live by themselves and by their own rules. Life in society means responsibility beyond “personal interest”.
A.
[edited for clarity]
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is the kind of argument I raise when someone tells me that objectively “harm is bad”.
Which is why I'm telling you to read more philosophy.
--------
quote:Is it ok for me to “harm” my dog this way?
Yes. Because while "harm is bad" is axiomatic, you justify doing a lesser harm -- the punishment -- to ward off a larger harm. A common derivative of "harm is bad" is, as I've said before, "harm should be minimized." Punishing your dog in order to train it is an example of minimizing harm through the application of harm.
quote:So she will inevitably meet other people who will notice her naiveté and ignorance and will take advantage of her. At that point I realise that I "prevented harm" while she was young, but she is now suffering because I have truncated the available information, and now it is way too late to REPARE that...
You're again confusing an axiom with a moral law. Axioms are NOT moral laws, and moral laws are pretty much never -- by my argument -- axiomatic. Your daughter may have been harmed by your protectiveness. You may have also protected her from other harm. If in balance your protectiveness proved over-protective, and thus did her more harm than good, then yes, you DID harm her by being excessively protective. But you did not deliberately harm her; you simply did not know that the result of your action would be a net harm.
quote:I’m making a general point here, to show that depending on our “absolute definitions” we might get to justify despicable things/acts.
Yes. Exactly. Although a more correct way to put that would be "depending on our definitions, we might justify acts that appear despicable to other people."
quote:Can you prove otherwise?
Yes. I can't do it as well as some philosophers already have, though. Like I said, read some philosophy now, then come back to this thread when you're done.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Objective Morality would be great for people living in a (wide and rational) society.
Who says society is rational?
quote:But when an Objective Moral System is set up, those who chose NOT to live by it are free to go and live by themselves and by their own rules.
It seems like you're saying that "objective morality" is synonomous with "a list of rules that one must follow to be a part of the group." That's what the law is; do you want "objective morality" to be synonomous with "the legal system"?
quote:Life in society means responsibility beyond “personal interest”.
Responsibility to who? You're always going to have to short change one person for another; you can't possibly have equal responsibility to everyone.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend, or even to be dismissive. Here's the problem: you're making assumptions about the meaning of the word "axiomatic" which aren't correct. Basically, you're attempting to invalidate an axiom based on what you believe would be an incorrect application of a derived principle.
This makes it hard to discuss axiomatic truth with you, because you're saying things like "harm can be good because I harm my dog in order to train him," not understanding that "good" and "bad" are not defined as zero-sum values for this purpose.
Your general observations are valid, but you're not using the right language for the task and are objecting to people's correct use of wording based on your misunderstanding of the terminology. I don't know how to correct this in this thread without suggesting additional study.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doing philosophy is a lot more helpful than reading philosophy... I'd recommend both if you are interested in objective morality, but that's no reason to not continue this thread.
I'd also think that the meaning of "axiom" is irrelevant to the discussion. Whether we are talking about "axioms" or "moral laws" or "postulates" or just "assumptions", I think it's fairly clear that suminonA is looking for some objective rule that can be used to determine good from bad. Whether we are calling that rule an "axiom" or something else is academic.
The trouble with the dog example is not a confusion about what are "axioms" but rather a mistaken hidden assumption. The dog example makes the following logical leap:
1. Harm is bad 2. It is always wrong to do something bad THEREFORE: It is always wrong to harm
But Assumpiont #2 is false, because in the dog example, all options involve doing something bad. Since we MUST do one thing or another, we have to do something bad, and thus in that case doing something bad is the right choice. So premise #2 is false - sometimes it is right to do something bad, if all the other alternatives involve doing things even worse.
Morality needs to do more than simply say harm is bad. It needs to say how we deal with situations in which some bad will come from anything we choose. How do we measure what is less bad and what is more bad? Even if we say harm is bad, we will need to determine what harm is before we can apply that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it needs to take us beyond utility, because that's just another abstract term for what is good. It's just another word for the measure of what is less or more bad. It doesn't tell us how to measure it, or what actually is less or more bad.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Tom that if all the members of this conversation had a basic grounding in philosophy, particularly ethics, the discussion would be much more productive. This is simply because the terminology used by modern philosophers has historical signifigance - just like the language used by any other field of study. Additionally, there's a tradition of ethical "moves" and their responses similar to opening chess moves. If everyone is familar with at least the opening moves, then we can go into greater detail about the later moves, which is where the game is won.
Hmmm... hope I didn't string out that analogy too far. I run into this problem a lot with my boyfriend - he's a religious studies and English major (pretty much the antithesis of my econ/philosophy majors). He's a smart guy, but because he lacks the vocabularly and background in philosophy, our discussions of philosophy are often riddled with frustration on both sides.
To those of you considering studying philosophy, - I think the best place to do it is with a teacher, or at least a couple of other learners, simply because a lot of philosophy involves challenging the views presented, and that's best done with more minds.
If you're interested in getting a grounding in philosophy, I'd suggest Sophie's World as a good introduction - plus it's an excellent novel in its own right. If you're interested in ethics in particular, I'd suggest A Companion To Ethics edited by Peter Singer (who is an extremely controversial ethicist, but knows his stuff).
Of course, none of this beats reading the primary sources themselves, but life is short, and so is free time. Use the introductory books as a spring board to find the primary works of the philosophers you find most interesting.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
