Does "RIGHT & WRONG" mean anything, without God or Religion?

[Brian63]

Several years ago on this forum, another poster convinced me that our decisions in general, including our ethical decisions, are composed of 2 elements---a value and a strategy used to maximize fulfillment of that value. The value, and what we desire, is itself a subjective portion that is not something that we decide upon, but just varies from person to person. You can enjoy a particular flavor of food, or type of music or movie, etc., and that is not something we made a conscious choice to value. It is just part of our personality. So you would not have decided to enjoy romance novels, but you do desire to experience pleasure and satisfaction in your life, and for you reading romance novels is the objective strategy used to maximize fulfillment of that.

The same is true for more moral decision-making, where you still value feelings of satisfaction, happiness, etc. and then in your life you discover certain methods are more productive towards that end than others, and so you pursue those methods. The reason why you do not go around constantly murdering people, stealing from them, etc. is not because the universe has decided that you should not do those and you are just obedient it, but rather because you learned that you do not want to experience pleasure, and the universe happens to be built in a certain way and so you make the decisions that will help in your goal.

So it helps to think of decisions in general as having a subjective VALUE theory and an objective STRATEGY theory. They are not completely subjective or completely objective.

Brian

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

In the end, it's all about adding up the pleasures & pains, to everyone, all creatures in the universe.

No doubt God is a Utilitarian. If he exists.


What I should have said is that if God exists, then he knows "good/evil" and "right/wrong" just as we do. Maybe he knows it better, but still it's essentially the same as what we know.
...
Whether they agree or not, our "moral code" is not based on what they might hand down to us. We know "good/evil" without needing them to dictate it to us.
...
But those "gods" do not exist. I said "gods" which really do exist, if there are any, probably agree with us about what is good/evil or right/wrong.
...
Yes, we know it's evil to rob a bank, put Jews into ovens, bomb Black churches in Alabama and stuff like that.
...
There are objective standards.
...
But weren't they wrong? Just because we can know good/evil and right/wrong doesn't mean everyone agrees. Sometimes people can be wrong and do evil things. That doesn't mean there's no objective good/evil.
...

Many people today think it was right at the time, and many people today think it would be right to do again.

But reasonable people know they're wrong.
...
There is an objective standard. It's because there's an objective standard that everyone agrees. The agreement is based upon the objective standard.

Prove to me that 'good' exists, as opposed to just an opinion we flog until everyone agrees with us or at least shuts up. Can you? Or do you just expect agreement?

I think the utilitarians already answered this a long time ago. "Greatest good for the greatest number."

But I'll say it this way: An increase in pleasure is always good if it's not accompanied by a decrease somewhere, or by an increase in pain. So, pure pleasure increase per se, with no other change, is always good.

(Some pleasure can be "bad" because it's superficial and will produce pain later, so we have to add the qualifier that the pleasure does not cause any offsetting pain or deprivation, and then it's "good" in the pure sense.)

The only drawback is the uncertainty about a possible change somewhere which could cancel the increase in pleasure. But we have extreme probability in many cases that an increase in pleasure happened, or also a decrease in pain, without any other change to cancel it.
...
In many cases the certainty is not so clear, but we have to choose what probably will lead to the better outcome. And we know this is "good" no matter what we believe about God.

Has it not occurred to you that this entire line of argument is wildly incompatible with the observed fact that people, for the most part, are not utilitarians?

Actually they are, whenever they argue a good case. You're right that they don't invoke the "utilitarian" label, which is rejected, but they do use the utilitarian logic to prove they're right. They always use the cost vs. benefit reasoning, and similar utilitarian reasoning.

If there's no doubt in your mind that any really existing God is a Utilitarian, then you can't rationally infer that his views are essentially the same as what we know.

Yes I can. He's probably right all the time, or virtually all the time. And when we're right, our logic is always utilitarian logic, even if we don't use the "utilitarian" label. So if God is a utilitarian, then he agrees with us when we're right.

You're contradicting that conclusion; you're asserting that his views are essentially the same as what you know.

And also you, and everyone else, whenever they're right. When we're right, it's always utilitarian logic that it's based upon. So there's no contradiction.

If as you say, "gods" which really do exist, if there are any, probably agree with us about what is good/evil or right/wrong, then it follows that the gods, same as "reasonable people" everywhere, are perfectly well aware that utilitarianism is a steaming pile of dingos' kidneys.

I'll take a dozen.

No, whenever those people are right, it's utilitarian reasoning they're following, despite their attitude problem about giving credit to the "utilitarians" by name. And God knows the utilitarian logic is correct. And he can do all the calculations of the costs and benefits or pleasure/pain etc.

There probably isn't one person in a thousand who sincerely believes in utilitarianism, . . .

But they all follow the utilitarian logic whenever they're right. Most people recognize that cost vs. benefit calculations are necessary to make many of the decisions.

. . . (as opposed to claiming to believe in it because he thinks it's what all the best people believe in), and even the rare Peter Singer types, the folks who apparently really do believe in it, make no serious attempt to live by its dictates.

They need someone like you to preach a sermon to them.

If there is a sadistic craving by the perpetrators, who gain a pleasure, this is less than the loss of pleasure to all those who are harmed.

Anyone who disagrees and thinks it's good to commit such an act must believe that the total pleasure to be gained by someone is greater than the suffering inflicted onto the victims. Or that the pleasure gained by some is greater than that which is lost by the victims.

Why on earth would you imagine that if someone disagrees with you about whether it's good to do some particular harm, it must be because he's disagreeing with you about the magnitude of the harm relative to the magnitude of the benefit, as opposed to disagreeing with you about whether toting up harms and benefits and doing an arithmetic operation is the correct way to judge right and wrong?

I "imagine" it (correctly) because that kind of reasoning is all they ever offer. If it's a real argument, it finally boils down to whose numbers are correct. Give an example of an argument about what's right/wrong which does not finally boil down to the total numbers of those harmed or benefited and the total net pleasure or pain which would result, to all those who are affected. This must be the final basis for what's right/wrong or good/evil because every real argument finally comes down to that calculation one way or another.

You understand, don't you, that what you're doing is no different from a Christian deluding himself that deep down atheists all agree with him that the Christian God is real and are just being dicks about admitting it?

You got me. I'm doing something like that. Prove me wrong -- What's an argument which does not finally boil down to the total harm vs benefit or suffering vs pleasure calculation? People don't like to admit that this is what it really boils down to, but that is where it always ends up. Even if it's about Heaven vs. Hell. Judgment Day. Etc.

Normal people care who gets the happiness and who gets the suffering.

You mean they want the happiness only for their friends or members of their tribe or clan? and for no one else? and they want the suffering for the other tribe or for ugly people or for some rival to them?

The amount of pleasure the two million bigots get from destroying the mosque does not weigh in the scales of justice against the suffering of the fifty people who lose their mosque, because the bigots don't deserve that pleasure.

All the pleasures and pains are factored in. You've already done the calculation, and you figure that there'd be more total suffering than benefit. You've factored in far more than the two million bigots, and after adding it all up you've decided against destroying the mosque, to get the optimum pleasure vs pain final result.

As Kant said, morality is not about how we can make ourselves happy, but about how we can make ourselves worthy of happiness.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." "It's more blessed to give than to receive."

Those sermons are inspiring.

Utilitarianism is unreasonable. What makes you think God would agree with you about that instead of agreeing with us about that?

About what?

He probably agrees with you because you're more charismatic than I am.

 

[DBT]

Rather than being an ''objective measurement of pain'' you are describing felt pain and verbal report. Pain itself is a subjective sensation/experience.

It's both. It's "subjective" sensation/experience, but is also objectively measurable.

Sensation is not measurable. It is only reportable. The subject can describe what they feel. This cannot be measured.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In the end, it's all about adding up the pleasures & pains, to everyone, all creatures in the universe.

Why?
Why would that be an important issue?
Living creatures must eat other living creatures to survive. Suffering is built into the operation of the universe.
If there's a creator god, this is his/her/their handiwork, this is the plan. If suffering is evil, then the universe is evil. Even if pleasure could be measured and shown to outweigh the suffering, that's not a justification to include evil in the process.
It's like saying that we must rape 28% of all Freshmen in order for the college system to work, but as long as 82% of the Freshmen graduate to become Sophomores, it's not evil.
Balance or benefit does not make the evil any less evil.

But still, this is my impression vs. your impression.

You've yet to show any reason to accept this as an objective standard for good vs. evil.

 

[bigfield]

The problem is that it is a subjective belief.

No. The following is not a "subjective belief" but a true statement:

Inflicting suffering (that produces no benefit) is morally wrong.

Saying this is no more "subjective" than saying 2 + 2 = 4.

The statement "2 + 2 = 4" is true because all of the terms are strictly defined and there is a mathematical proof for this equality. The same cannot be said of suffering, benefit and goodness.

You've attempted to provide definitions for some of these things but you've failed to provide anything even remotely resembling the rigour of mathematics.

 

[Malintent]

or "GOOD & EVIL"?

Everyone says things like "That's wrong!" or "It's the right thing to do!" etc.

Likewise "That's good!" and so on.

What do we mean when we talk like that? Obviously there doesn't have to be a God in order to speak that way. Or, a non-religious person says those things and means it or understands something serious by it.

Also, it doesn't just mean, "I would like that," or "I would dislike that." When you say it's good or it would be right or wrong, you don't just mean your own personal feelings about it. You mean that even if you didn't exist, it would be good or bad or right or wrong.

Suppose you say about something that's going to happen tomorrow, "That will be good," but then you suddenly die that night. Isn't it still the case that it will be "good" anyway, even though you

If you are talking about subjective good and evil, it is up to the individual, the local group, the community, etc.. to define that. We call the sets of rights and wrongs, "customs".

If you are talking about objective good and evil, then I would say there is no such thing. It does not exist. Nothing is "objectively good" or "objectively bad". Good and bad (good and evil) always has a subject... context is everything.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Pain/suffering can be measured objectively, just as heat and cold can be.

But we asked for an objective standard for right and wrong, you offer subjective impressions of pain, suffering and pleasure, and insist that that's the objective standard.

It's just as "objective" as the standard for anything else empirical. Which one is hotter -- the sun or the moon?

We can objectively measure this and establish that the sun is hotter. But it's based on "subjective impressions" of the heat coming from the sun. You can claim to measure it with instruments, but there can be similar instruments to measure pain. The instrument to measure it has no validity unless it is confirmed by the sensation.

The fundamental fact that the sun is hotter is based on the "subjective impressions" of the heat coming from it. Just as objective knowledge of pain is based on similar "impressions" of the pain.

Without those "subjective impressions" we would have no scientific knowledge of anything empirical.

You continue to fail to produce the objective standard for right and wrong.

It's right (or good) if it increases the net sum total of desire gratification (or decreases the net sum total of pain) to all creatures in the universe.

It's "right" if it increases this good or reduces the evil. When we don't know whether it increases or decreases this net sum total, then we don't know if it's "good" or "evil" or if it's "right" or "wrong" to do it.

That's the objective standard. We can know (at least with high probability) that a particular act will increase or decrease this net sum total. We know that Vlad the Impaler increased the net sum total of pain, or reduced the net sum total of desire gratification in the universe when he tortured someone. I.e., we know this with high probability.

Just because the ideas can be difficult does not mean there's no objective standard and no right/wrong.

And 'just because' you have an opinion on suffering, that doesn't come close to making it objective.

It's just as objective as your "opinion" that the sun is hotter than the moon.

If you think that Vlad did not inflict objective pain onto his victims, what is your evidence? There is evidence that such things cause pain.

Maybe pain/suffering can be more difficult to measure than the feeling of heat, but the greater difficulty of measuring it does not make it less objective. Maybe it can be less certain in some cases, but it's still something "objective" being measured and estimated.

 

[bilby]

Without any doubt you believe that the total net harm caused by the place being destroyed would be greater than the benefit.

You've already done the calculation, figuring in ALL those impacted far into the future, and you've decided that the total suffering/pain would exceed the benefit, factoring in everyone who experiences pleasure or pain as a result.

So you are saying that all we need, in order to reach an undeniable decision on whether something is right or wrong, is to know what harm is caused, and what benefits result?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" are objective. Calling them a "social convention" doesn't make them subjective.

OK, so let's abolish all the courts and the criminal justice system and prisons and police. When you agree to that, then you can claim there is no objective standard to criminal prosecutions and punishments.

It'd be really easy to just agree to that, since it'll never happen, then where's your argument?

But the fact that we have a man-made justice system is just evidence that we have a man-made justice system.

But we created the justice system for a reason. It's supposed to serve a purpose, or function. It didn't just happen without humans choosing to create it to serve a purpose.

If it's a function of objective right and wrong, could you explain how our justice system would be different if there were no objective right and wrong? If it was merely, say, a social convention created to allow greater numbers of humans to live and work together, subject to changes in social opinions and whims of power?

But such an allowance for humans to live and work together IS an objective right or good. And it would have been an objective evil not to have created a justice system and other institutions to allow humans to live and work together

Without the objective right or good of this, there is nothing gained in humans living and working together. It's for this gain, this increasing the desire gratification or reducing suffering that humans wish to live and work together and thus create a justice system.

The earliest communities came together to increase the gratifications to those humans and reduce the threats to them which would cause pain or suffering or deprivation.

Calling it "merely, say, a social convention" does not change the fact that it is done in order to gain something, i.e., to enhance the desire gratification to us and to reduce the threat of pain or suffering which would occur without any justice system.

 

[DBT]

Maybe pain/suffering can be more difficult to measure than the feeling of heat, but the greater difficulty of measuring it does not make it less objective. Maybe it can be less certain in some cases, but it's still something "objective" being measured and estimated.

You are equivocating. We are able to measure temperature rising or falling but we cannot measure how a rise in temperature is felt by a subject.

What feels really hot to one individual may be comfortable to another. Even if two individuals report feeling hot, there is no way to measure if their perception and feeling of heat is indeed identical. The measurement is objective but the perception of heat is subjective, and not necessarily constant.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's just as "objective" as the standard for anything else empirical. Which one is hotter -- the sun or the moon?.

You know, offering an analogy doesn't ;rove that suffering can be objectively measured, nor that it is an objective standard for good/evil.

It's right (or good) if it ...
It's "right" if it ...
That's the objective standard.

You SAYING it's the objective standard is pretty much fucking bullshit. You need to support that.

It's just as objective as your "opinion" that the sun is hotter than the moon.

No. We can establish a measurement system for temperature and everyone using that system can get repeatable observations.
Your analogy doesn't even make a good metaphor.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil" are objective. Calling them a "social convention" doesn't make them subjective. .

Insisting that they're objective does not make them objective....

At this point I have to figure either you don't know the difference between objective and subjective or you're in denial.

 

[DBT]

Reminds me of the Mythbusters saying; ''I Reject Your Reality and Substitute My Own''

But in this instance it's more like, 'I Reject Reality and Substitute My Own''

 

[Lion IRC]

Maybe pain/suffering can be more difficult to measure than the feeling of heat, but the greater difficulty of measuring it does not make it less objective. Maybe it can be less certain in some cases, but it's still something "objective" being measured and estimated.

You are equivocating.

No I don't think he is.

...We are able to measure temperature rising or falling but we cannot measure how a rise in temperature is felt by a subject.

Of course we can measure degrees of temperature or pain experienced by different people.

...What feels really hot to one individual may be comfortable to another. Even if two individuals report feeling hot, there is no way to measure if their perception and feeling of heat is indeed identical.

That doesn't mean we can't measure it.
Patients can be asked by their dentist to rate their experience of pain on a scale of 1 - 10 and any patient who reports a 9 out of 10 can be clearly understood in terms of the common denominator.
Think also of the Scoville Scale which exists as a meaningful measurement of spiciness despite the fact that not everyone has tasted every known variety of chilli.

...The measurement is objective but the perception of heat is subjective, and not necessarily constant.

All empirical data is derived from the senses - subjective perception - so even if I experience a 9 out of 10 and you experience a 3 out of 10 that doesn't mean pain is immeasurable.

If we ever had true, strong AI then a cyborg might not be able to have firsthand 'evidence' of pain but it would presumably be able to recognize that other non-cyborgs report the existence of such a thing as pain and that it is experienced in varying degrees from 1 to 10. And a group of humans and robots all chatting about pain could agree that 10 out of 10 would feel the same to everyone. (I suppose we would have to change the scale from 1-10 to 0-10 so that the robots could feel more included in the discussion.)

 

[Bomb#20]

And a group of humans and robots all chatting about pain could agree that 10 out of 10 would feel the same to everyone. (I suppose we would have to change the scale from 1-10 to 0-10 so that the robots could feel more included in the discussion.)

You know, just because computer scientists always count from 0 doesn't mean we can't program machines to count from 1.

 

[DBT]

You are equivocating.

No I don't think he is.

Of course he is. Detecting signals between neurons or temperature variations tells us nothing about how the subject perceives this in conscious form. It can only be reported by the person. And then there is no way to determine whether two individuals experience the same conditions identically....all forms of experience being subjective

Of course we can measure degrees of temperature or pain experienced by different people.

Absolutely not. Temperature can be measured objectively but the perception of heat or cold is subjective and can only be reported. And then there is no measure of that experience, some may be acclimatised to a given temperature and so feel comfortable while another may feel too hot or too cold.

That doesn't mean we can't measure it.
Patients can be asked by their dentist to rate their experience of pain on a scale of 1 - 10 and any patient who reports a 9 out of 10 can be clearly understood in terms of the common denominator.
Think also of the Scoville Scale which exists as a meaningful measurement of spiciness despite the fact that not everyone has tasted every known variety of chilli.

Again, things like temperature or tissue damage can be determined objectively, but asking a patient what they feel on a scale of one to ten is a subjective scale. One patients ten may another's seven under exactly the same conditions.

All empirical data is derived from the senses - subjective perception - so even if I experience a 9 out of 10 and you experience a 3 out of 10 that doesn't mean pain is immeasurable.

The very scale is subjective. The scale of 1 to 10 is specific to the individual, and not common or objective between all people.

That is why it is the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Lion IRC]

So the next time a health care professional with a degree qualification in medical science asks me to rate my pain on a scale of 1 to 10 perhaps I shall laugh at them for using such a subjective method of gathering data.

How many doctors ask that question and then, when the patient says "5 out of 10", the doctor scratches their head wondering what 5 out of 10 means?

Answer - none!

Because if a doctor said..."gee Mrs Smith, I just don't know what you mean by 5 out of 10"
the patient would say well then WTF did you ask me?

 

[DBT]

So the next time a health care professional with a degree qualification in medical science asks me to rate my pain on a scale of 1 to 10 perhaps I shall laugh at them for using such a subjective method of gathering data.

No, you are being asked what you feel...which is not applicable or transferable to anyone else, being subjective. Being your subjective experience. Which is not accessible to your doctor, hence the question.

How many doctors ask that question and then, when the patient says "5 out of 10", the doctor scratches their head wondering what 5 out of 10 means?

Answer - none!

Because if a doctor said..."gee Mrs Smith, I just don't know what you mean by 5 out of 10"
the patient would say well then WTF did you ask me?

Your reply is a report on your perception, feeling and level of pain. If you say that it rates a 10, you are reporting that your pain is unbearable. Which, being your subjective experience, cannot be measured, felt or accessed by anyone else, hence the question is put to you and only applicable to you.

 

[Lion IRC]

If it was subjective the doctor would have no idea what I 'meant' by pain level.

But by using a measurement that everyone can relate to the doctor gets a meaningful datum which they can use in comparison to other patients.

If a child states that they are experiencing an 8 out of 10 when scratched with a toothpick I can sympathise with them because I too have experienced an 8 out of 10. We both share a common epistemology - pain exists (ontology) and we agree that a measurement 8 out of 10 is objectively worse than 4 out of 10. It's a sound, rational, objective epistemology. And neither of us would dispute that 8 out of 10 is meaningful to both of us.

But if a child reports an 8 out of 10 as the result of something which I don't think merits that score am I going to dismiss the child's pain? ...oh that couldn't possibly hurt THAT much. ?

No! I'm going to be able to (objectively) relate to the shared experience of what it (objectively) means to feel an 8 out of 10. If not, then we couldn't use the pain scale as a measurement because the person who claims that something is 8 out of 10 can simply be disbelieved - and if I can do that then I can gainsay the reports of any scientist who 'claims' they observed (experienced) some other type of evidence.

"You claim you observed bacteria under a microscope? Nope. You just imagined it - like the imaginary pain you felt."

 

[Juma]

If it was subjective the doctor would have no idea what I 'meant' by pain level.

But by using a measurement that everyone can relate to the doctor gets a meaningful datum which they can use in comparison to other patients.

If a child states that they are experiencing an 8 out of 10 when scratched with a toothpick I can sympathise with them because I too have experienced an 8 out of 10. We both share a common epistemology - pain exists (ontology) and we agree that a measurement 8 out of 10 is objectively worse than 4 out of 10. It's a sound, rational, objective epistemology. And neither of us would dispute that 8 out of 10 is meaningful to both of us.

But if a child reports an 8 out of 10 as the result of something which I don't think merits that score am I going to dismiss the child's pain? ...oh that couldn't possibly hurt THAT much. ?

No! I'm going to be able to (objectively) relate to the shared experience of what it (objectively) means to feel an 8 out of 10. If not, then we couldn't use the pain scale as a measurement because the person who claims that something is 8 out of 10 can simply be disbelieved - and if I can do that then I can gainsay the reports of any scientist who 'claims' they observed (experienced) some other type of evidence.

"You claim you observed bacteria under a microscope? Nope. You just imagined it - like the imaginary pain you felt."

This is not what subjective/objective means.

You reported value (the value on the scale) is objective value. The perceived pain is subjective.