Help
MORAL REALISM AND INFINITE SPACETIME IMPLY MORAL NIHILISM
by Quentin Smith
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/moral_realism_and...entin_smith.htm
I conclude that his paper has no value based on his conclusions (lol). This guy makes my head spin. Though the paper is lengthy it is by no means boring (if you can bare with the philosophical jargon).
Your thoughts on this paper on morality?
Rate Topic:
#2
Evangelical Capitalist 
- Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 175
- Joined: 20-January 04
- Location:Indiana
Posted 23 February 2004 - 05:53 AM
Quote
The performance of an action is morally indifferent if and only if the performance of that action neither increases nor decreases the amount of value in the universe. An action is empirically possible if and only if it is consistent with the boundary conditions (intuitively, the arrangement of particulars) and the laws of nature in the actual world.
Moral realism is true if and only if particulars possess value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they have value. Global moral realism is true if and only if all organisms, inanimate mass and energy, and space and time, and states of these entities, have value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they have value.
Moral realism is true if and only if particulars possess value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they have value. Global moral realism is true if and only if all organisms, inanimate mass and energy, and space and time, and states of these entities, have value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they have value.
Nothing but rank intrincicism. (And I mean rank in every possible meaning of the term.)
Brad Eisenhauer
"Get real, Man." -- Ayn Rand (paraphrased... very roughly)
"Get real, Man." -- Ayn Rand (paraphrased... very roughly)
#3 Guest_heusdens_
Posted 08 March 2004 - 05:58 AM
The issue adressed here, that an infinite state of affairs in an infinite universe, implies moral nihilism, is a rather peculiar statement.
Where do moral values come from then, since they do exist?
If being alive or not being alive is arbitrary, if there would not be acts that a living organism commits, that would increase it's chances of survival, based on evolution theory, such an organism or species, would not even exist.
The origin of living matter, it's ability to seperate itself from the environment, and act according to changes in the environment, and also the changes that occur to the organisms/species over long periods of time, have contemplated into living organisms that wilfully act in order to increase their chances of survival in a changing environment.
Moral values are just an extention to this willfull and intentional actions a living organism as a species performs, in order to increase it's chances of survival.
The existence of such morals require that there is consciousness, and that not only the living organism performs such willfull and intentional actions, but also is consciouss of them.
Without mentining the historic roots of moral values, how they developed over time and came into being, one can not understand morals.
The writer of this silly argument however implicitly adapts to the point of view that moral values must have come from some other source, outside of the real world, and not just the source of moral values, but in fact the source of everything that exists. The only problem with this is of course, is that such a source can not and does not exist, and therefore the argument is incorreect.
Where do moral values come from then, since they do exist?
If being alive or not being alive is arbitrary, if there would not be acts that a living organism commits, that would increase it's chances of survival, based on evolution theory, such an organism or species, would not even exist.
The origin of living matter, it's ability to seperate itself from the environment, and act according to changes in the environment, and also the changes that occur to the organisms/species over long periods of time, have contemplated into living organisms that wilfully act in order to increase their chances of survival in a changing environment.
Moral values are just an extention to this willfull and intentional actions a living organism as a species performs, in order to increase it's chances of survival.
The existence of such morals require that there is consciousness, and that not only the living organism performs such willfull and intentional actions, but also is consciouss of them.
Without mentining the historic roots of moral values, how they developed over time and came into being, one can not understand morals.
The writer of this silly argument however implicitly adapts to the point of view that moral values must have come from some other source, outside of the real world, and not just the source of moral values, but in fact the source of everything that exists. The only problem with this is of course, is that such a source can not and does not exist, and therefore the argument is incorreect.
#4
Tom
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 13-March 04
Posted 13 March 2004 - 01:59 PM
Yes, the conclusion is wrong. But does that mean there is nothing of value to be gained by analyzing it?
On the contrary, knowing how someone's concepts lead to bad conclusions can be useful for thinking about the nature of arguments.
This is important because Objectivist logic goes beyond conventional logical analysis by studying the concepts presupposed by an argument.
Here are his basic claims:
1. Particulars possess value independent of whether anyone believes they have value.
2. Units of value can be summed.
3. Nothing has value if actions don't affect values.
4. A person is morally obligated to perform some action if the consequence of that action increases positive value or prevents the decrease of positive value.
5. If the time is infinite, then any net impact on a value is zero.
=IC*: Nothing has value in an infinite universe.
6. Time is finite.
=FC**: Things have value in and of themselves.
Let's analyze the concepts.
Premise 1 presupposes a concept of value (moral intrinsicism) which goes against the cognitive basis of values.
Premise 3 presupposes a concept of value which is incompatible with moral intrinsicism and therefore premise 1.
Now for conventional analysis, i.e. of the logical structure.
His instrumental conclusion is incompatible with premise 1.
His final conclusion proposes what he has already assumed, i.e. he commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.
----
* Instrumental Conclusion
** Final Conclusion
On the contrary, knowing how someone's concepts lead to bad conclusions can be useful for thinking about the nature of arguments.
This is important because Objectivist logic goes beyond conventional logical analysis by studying the concepts presupposed by an argument.
Here are his basic claims:
1. Particulars possess value independent of whether anyone believes they have value.
2. Units of value can be summed.
3. Nothing has value if actions don't affect values.
4. A person is morally obligated to perform some action if the consequence of that action increases positive value or prevents the decrease of positive value.
5. If the time is infinite, then any net impact on a value is zero.
=IC*: Nothing has value in an infinite universe.
6. Time is finite.
=FC**: Things have value in and of themselves.
Let's analyze the concepts.
Premise 1 presupposes a concept of value (moral intrinsicism) which goes against the cognitive basis of values.
Premise 3 presupposes a concept of value which is incompatible with moral intrinsicism and therefore premise 1.
Now for conventional analysis, i.e. of the logical structure.
His instrumental conclusion is incompatible with premise 1.
His final conclusion proposes what he has already assumed, i.e. he commits the fallacy of circular reasoning.
----
* Instrumental Conclusion
** Final Conclusion
#5
poohat
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Validating
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 13-February 04
- Location:London
Posted 13 March 2004 - 02:12 PM
From a quick glance, his argument seems to be corrent, and logically valid. His essential point is that IF moral realism is true AND aggregate value theory is true AND time is infinite THEN moral nihilism is true (ie of the form (A & B & C) => D). He isnt actually claiming that A B and C are true, only that D is a necessary consequence if they are.
In truth however, moral realism is false, and aggregate value theory seems semantically meaningless.
Edit: at a more detailed glance his argument contains hidden premises, and seems logically false in a few areas (all of which seem to come from his conception of infinity):
1) Unstated assumption: He assumes that time is both objective and metaphysically discrete. The second is almost certainly false, and I'm not sure about the first.
2) Unstated assumption: He also supposes some kind of non-determinism, since he talks about 'other possible universes'. Strict determinism implies that talk of other 'possible universes' is semantically meaningless, since things could not be different from how they are.
3) Logical error: since time is probably continuous (taking units of planck time to be an epistemological classification rather than a metaphysical one), the carinality of the set of all 'moments of time' wouldnt be alpha-zero anyway, so saying that it could be mapped onto the set of integers is false.
4) Unstated assumption: He assumes its possible to talk about "cubes of empty space", in which _nothing_ exists.
5) Unstated assumption: He assumes space is objective and metaphysically discrete.
6) Logical error: Since space probably isnt discrete, you cant talk about 'alpha-zero' units of space either, or map cubes of space onto integers.
7) Logical error: "Now it follows that I cannot increase the value of the universe at time t1 by performing action A, since aleph-zero + 2 = aleph-zero". Even if 2 functions tend to the same limit, they may be do so at different rates and one may be larger than other after any finite number of iterations. For instance, |n+2| is greater than |n| for all finite n, even though both tend to infinity. His statement is only mathematically correct if you talk about time in the limit, which is nonsense in this context.
8) Unstated assumption: He also assumes that space is seperable from time. Certain modern scientific theories would disagree.
In truth however, moral realism is false, and aggregate value theory seems semantically meaningless.
Edit: at a more detailed glance his argument contains hidden premises, and seems logically false in a few areas (all of which seem to come from his conception of infinity):
1) Unstated assumption: He assumes that time is both objective and metaphysically discrete. The second is almost certainly false, and I'm not sure about the first.
2) Unstated assumption: He also supposes some kind of non-determinism, since he talks about 'other possible universes'. Strict determinism implies that talk of other 'possible universes' is semantically meaningless, since things could not be different from how they are.
3) Logical error: since time is probably continuous (taking units of planck time to be an epistemological classification rather than a metaphysical one), the carinality of the set of all 'moments of time' wouldnt be alpha-zero anyway, so saying that it could be mapped onto the set of integers is false.
4) Unstated assumption: He assumes its possible to talk about "cubes of empty space", in which _nothing_ exists.
5) Unstated assumption: He assumes space is objective and metaphysically discrete.
6) Logical error: Since space probably isnt discrete, you cant talk about 'alpha-zero' units of space either, or map cubes of space onto integers.
7) Logical error: "Now it follows that I cannot increase the value of the universe at time t1 by performing action A, since aleph-zero + 2 = aleph-zero". Even if 2 functions tend to the same limit, they may be do so at different rates and one may be larger than other after any finite number of iterations. For instance, |n+2| is greater than |n| for all finite n, even though both tend to infinity. His statement is only mathematically correct if you talk about time in the limit, which is nonsense in this context.
8) Unstated assumption: He also assumes that space is seperable from time. Certain modern scientific theories would disagree.
#6
Bearster
- Member
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: 27-February 04
- Real Name:Bearster
Posted 17 March 2004 - 12:13 AM
Quote
...argument seems to be corrent, and logically valid. His essential point is that IF moral realism is true AND aggregate value theory is true AND time is infinite THEN...
What do you think you mean by "logically valid?"
Whatever the word is, for deduction from false or arbitrary premises, surely "logic" is not it!
"If god exists, then he would want me to be King." -- Bearster
"No he wouldn't, he would want ME to be King!" -- John Smith
What the hell can one say to "logic" like that?
God doesn't exist, and so there isn't any way to say well, if he *did* exist, *then*... He doesn't. A isn't not-A.
#7
poohat
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Validating
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 13-February 04
- Location:London
Posted 17 March 2004 - 12:39 AM
Quote
What do you think you mean by "logically valid?"
Essentially a valid argument is one in which the conclusion could be reached from the inputted premises by a Turing machine programmed to recursively apply the rules of logic. Not all valid arguments have true conclusions, and not all arguments with true conclusions are valid.
Examples:
Valid (but false) argument:
Premises: All men have two heads
Premises: Bearster is a man
Conclusion: Bearster has two heads
Invalid argument (with true conclusion):
Premises: Some men have one head
Premises: Bearster is a man
Conclusion: Bearster has one head
Valid (and true) argument:
Premises All men have one head
Premises: Bearster is a man
Conclusion: Bearster has one head
Quote
Whatever the word is, for deduction from false or arbitrary premises, surely "logic" is not it!
Of course it is. Perhaps youre using 'logical' as a synonym for 'rational', but even then youd be incorrect. Its perfectly possible to rationally/'logically' deduce/induce arguments and courses of actions from premises which you were justified in believing, but later discovered were false. Take risk analysis or weather forecasting for instance (or any of the multitude of other disciplines which centre around making predictions based on incomplete and possibly incorrect information).
Youre essentially dismissing all forms of hypotheticals, or any predictive system with reasonable power.
#8
MinorityOfOne
- Member
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 488
- Joined: 25-August 03
Posted 17 March 2004 - 01:43 AM
Most textbooks distinguish between arguments that are "valid" (the conclusion is true if the premises are true) and "sound" (the conclusion is true because the premises are true). I dislike this terminology. Better to refer to the latter as "valid", and the former as "formally valid." The only thing "valid but unsound" arguments have going for them is that they look like good arguments. Granting them the title of validity gives them too much credit.
This is closely related to the distinction between logic as a formal system and logic as the art of non-contradiction. Formalization of logic is a means to an end: that is, non-contradictory identification of reality. An argument is not valid, strictly, if its premises contradict facts of reality. It can be formally valid, but it doesn't achieve the end of logic.
This is closely related to the distinction between logic as a formal system and logic as the art of non-contradiction. Formalization of logic is a means to an end: that is, non-contradictory identification of reality. An argument is not valid, strictly, if its premises contradict facts of reality. It can be formally valid, but it doesn't achieve the end of logic.
#9
poohat
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Validating
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 13-February 04
- Location:London
Posted 17 March 2004 - 04:31 AM
MinorityOfOne, on Mar 17 2004, 02:43 AM, said:
Most textbooks distinguish between arguments that are "valid" (the conclusion is true if the premises are true) and "sound" (the conclusion is true because the premises are true). I dislike this terminology. Better to refer to the latter as "valid", and the former as "formally valid." The only thing "valid but unsound" arguments have going for them is that they look like good arguments. Granting them the title of validity gives them too much credit.
Its just semantics; youre attaching too much emotional meaning to the word 'valid'. What is important is that there is a significant difference between an argument that is false because of incorect logical reasoning, and one that is false because it has been correctly deduced from false premises. We require a distinct name for each type argument here to the aid clarity of thought, and for whatever historical reason the validity/truth naming dichotomy has arisen to cover this. Call the first a 'quaxor' arguement and the second a 'gruzor' instead if you like, it makes no difference really - its just a name, and whats important is that each one has a different name so we can tell them apart.
Quote
This is closely related to the distinction between logic as a formal system and logic as the art of non-contradiction. Formalization of logic is a means to an end: that is, non-contradictory identification of reality. An argument is not valid, strictly, if its premises contradict facts of reality. It can be formally valid, but it doesn't achieve the end of logic.
#10
y_feldblum
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 1,372
- Joined: 19-October 03
Posted 17 March 2004 - 01:23 PM
Proposal: ban those who use the logical fallacy which I hereby name the argument from "it's just semantics".
> Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
#11
poohat
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Validating
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 13-February 04
- Location:London
Posted 17 March 2004 - 01:28 PM
y_feldblum, on Mar 17 2004, 02:23 PM, said:
Proposal: ban those who use the logical fallacy which I hereby name the argument from "it's just semantics".
How is pointing out that a particular argument is debating lingustic usage, rather than reality, a fallacy?
If you dont want to be accused of arguing semantics, maybe you should stop doing so?
#12
Richard_Halley
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 532
- Joined: 11-March 04
Posted 17 March 2004 - 02:25 PM
I'm with you feldblum...
This is not the first time poohat has argued against identifying concepts, while hiding under the guise that he is merely argueing that the definition of a word is unimportant (see the abortion topic in ethics/aesthetics).
This is not the first time poohat has argued against identifying concepts, while hiding under the guise that he is merely argueing that the definition of a word is unimportant (see the abortion topic in ethics/aesthetics).
This is the law:
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
-John Steinbeck
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
-John Steinbeck
#13
y_feldblum
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 1,372
- Joined: 19-October 03
Posted 17 March 2004 - 05:02 PM
So, how do I add my creation to the Bureau of Investigation of Grievous Epistemological Logical Fallacies (big elf) crime-list?
And, pointing out that your opponent is just debating semantics is the single biggest indicator that, instead, you are.
And, reclassifying what your opponent is debating from reality to linguistic usage and then knocking him for debating linguistic usage is indeed a fallacy - the straw man fallacy.
Spell-check: linguistic; arguing.
And, pointing out that your opponent is just debating semantics is the single biggest indicator that, instead, you are.
And, reclassifying what your opponent is debating from reality to linguistic usage and then knocking him for debating linguistic usage is indeed a fallacy - the straw man fallacy.
Spell-check: linguistic; arguing.
> Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
#14
poohat
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Validating
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 13-February 04
- Location:London
Posted 17 March 2004 - 05:25 PM
y_feldblum, on Mar 17 2004, 06:02 PM, said:
And, reclassifying what your opponent is debating from reality to linguistic usage and then knocking him for debating linguistic usage is indeed a fallacy - the straw man fallacy.
This however was a semantics debate. The point was abuot what word should be used to describe an argument which involved correct logical deductions from false premises.
On a sidenote, the desire to classify valid debate techniques that you personally dont like as being 'logical fallacies' is what gave us hideous creations like the Intentionalist Fallacy.
#16
Richard_Halley
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 532
- Joined: 11-March 04
Posted 17 March 2004 - 07:30 PM
Quote
the desire to classify valid debate techniques that you personally dont like as being 'logical fallacies'
Undefineing a word in order to undefine/invalidate what that word refers to is hardly a "valid debate technique."
Validity is a concept that had meaning before this arguement began. An attempt to erase that meaning is no less than an attempt to disguise another concept behind that meaning.
This is the law:
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
-John Steinbeck
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
-John Steinbeck
#17
poohat
- Junior Member
-
- Group: Validating
- Posts: 93
- Joined: 13-February 04
- Location:London
Posted 17 March 2004 - 08:46 PM
Richard_Halley, on Mar 17 2004, 08:30 PM, said:
Quote
the desire to classify valid debate techniques that you personally dont like as being 'logical fallacies'
Undefineing a word in order to undefine/invalidate what that word refers to is hardly a "valid debate technique."
Validity is a concept that had meaning before this arguement began. An attempt to erase that meaning is no less than an attempt to disguise another concept behind that meaning.
The term validity' has (to the best of my knowledge) always been used since its inception to refer to a correctly deduced logical argument regardless of the truth values of the premises, which is how I initially used the term in this thread. I am not the one who tried to 'undefine' the word here, I simply mentioned the pointlessness of substituting a completely different linguistic sound to refer to the exact same concept.
I dont really care which word you use to describe "a correctly deduced logical argument", and debating which word is 'best' to use is a fairly textbook example of 'arguing semantics'. I'll continue to use the standard-usage adjective 'valid' however.
Quote
Proposal: When talking about whether a certain conclusion can be derived from given premises, use "deducible" or "deducibility".
This will avoid confusion between different conceptions of validity.
This will avoid confusion between different conceptions of validity.
#18
Richard_Halley
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 532
- Joined: 11-March 04
Posted 17 March 2004 - 10:22 PM
poohat:
Your definiton of "valid" is completely meaningless, and so was your arguement about the "validity" of moral nihilism. As a result, everything posted since this first post of yours, is completely meaningless also.
MinorityOfOne's post was an attempt to point this out... he said:
You pretended that this was a semantic arguement by lumping it in with the rest of his post (which did deal with semantics). The above, however, is not a semantic arguement and may not be dismissed as such.
The point is, poohat, that your entire arguement is irrellivent to the topic at hand.
Your definiton of "valid" is completely meaningless, and so was your arguement about the "validity" of moral nihilism. As a result, everything posted since this first post of yours, is completely meaningless also.
MinorityOfOne's post was an attempt to point this out... he said:
Quote
The only thing "valid but unsound" arguments have going for them is that they look like good arguments.
You pretended that this was a semantic arguement by lumping it in with the rest of his post (which did deal with semantics). The above, however, is not a semantic arguement and may not be dismissed as such.
The point is, poohat, that your entire arguement is irrellivent to the topic at hand.
This is the law:
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
-John Steinbeck
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
-John Steinbeck
#19
MinorityOfOne
- Member
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 488
- Joined: 25-August 03
Posted 17 March 2004 - 10:24 PM
Look, I can see where you're coming from. But there's a limit to how far one ought to go in accepting stipulated definitions. (In fact, I think they're half the reason that a lot of contemporary philosophy is practically unreadable by anyone who is not a trained scholar.) Take, for instance, the term "bright". Ok, we all know what it means. But Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and a bunch of other people have co-opted it to mean "athiest".
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0...,981412,00.html
This is stupid. They introduce a new word just because it has connotations they like. Well, if that's ok, why don't we stop calling ourselves "Objectivists" and start calling ourselves "superheroes" -- where "superhero" is defined, of course, as "Objectivist"?
I don't know that this is how "valid" came to have the meaning it has with respect to logic, but it's had a similar effect. If it were called "formally proper" or something like that, people wouldn't think of valid but unsound arguments as being half as important as they do. The focus might well be more on connections to reality, rather than connections between concepts.
Of course, there are other major philosophical issues involved: I think this is a more a symptom than a cause. But that's still no reason to support it. To give another analogy: what if I were to say that, within my writings, I shall refer to Ayn Rand's arguments as "true arguments" -- but using a stipulated definition for "true arguments"? Sheesh.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0...,981412,00.html
This is stupid. They introduce a new word just because it has connotations they like. Well, if that's ok, why don't we stop calling ourselves "Objectivists" and start calling ourselves "superheroes" -- where "superhero" is defined, of course, as "Objectivist"?
I don't know that this is how "valid" came to have the meaning it has with respect to logic, but it's had a similar effect. If it were called "formally proper" or something like that, people wouldn't think of valid but unsound arguments as being half as important as they do. The focus might well be more on connections to reality, rather than connections between concepts.
Of course, there are other major philosophical issues involved: I think this is a more a symptom than a cause. But that's still no reason to support it. To give another analogy: what if I were to say that, within my writings, I shall refer to Ayn Rand's arguments as "true arguments" -- but using a stipulated definition for "true arguments"? Sheesh.
#20
MinorityOfOne
- Member
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 488
- Joined: 25-August 03
Posted 17 March 2004 - 10:31 PM
Right, Halley. In a sense I am discussing semantics, but there are times when one ought to discuss semantics. Rand was right to discuss the semantics of "selfish". Why? Because we think in language, and so words matter. There are some aspects of language that are totally optional, but not everything about language is optional. Proper grammar, for instance, is not optional. And when you're going to stipulate a definition for a word, it creates cognitive chaos if you entirely ignore the standard definition. One rule of objective communication: respect your reader's context. Language is heavily automatized, and if you define a term in a way that is utterly contrary to standard usage (without good reason), you will succeed only in confusing your reader.
If you want proof of this, go talk to some Freshman in a logic class.
If you want proof of this, go talk to some Freshman in a logic class.
