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

[DBT]

It seems to me that if two people report that their pain on a scale from 1 to 10 was 5 then it means exactly the same thing. That's because the subjective experience of pain is relative to past experience. That said, the scale is usually relative to the context of the situation and to the amount of pain that can be reasonably expected, but also to what amount of pain is willing to be accepted (such as when a dentist asks how much pain the patient is feeling and whether to administer more anesthetic).

Two people reporting a pain level of 5 may not be the same if we had an objective meter of pain, say set at a universal average of 5, because some are more sensitive to pain than other, even individual pain thresholds vary over time. It's not a fixed value.

 

[Treedbear]

It seems to me that if two people report that their pain on a scale from 1 to 10 was 5 then it means exactly the same thing. That's because the subjective experience of pain is relative to past experience. That said, the scale is usually relative to the context of the situation and to the amount of pain that can be reasonably expected, but also to what amount of pain is willing to be accepted (such as when a dentist asks how much pain the patient is feeling and whether to administer more anesthetic).

Two people reporting a pain level of 5 may not be the same if we had an objective meter of pain, say set at a universal average of 5, because some are more sensitive to pain than other, even individual pain thresholds vary over time. It's not a fixed value.

I'm not saying it will ever be objectively quantifiable. But it does convey some meaning. Only that hypothetically if the context were normalized by taking every factor into consideration it would be directly comparable. In day to day situations that's what we attempt to do. Neurological hypersensitivity to pain is built into the subjective experience so I don't think it would require special consideration. Yes, that person has a lower tolerance, but the subjective pain is-what-it-is in the sense that it conveys the same information as what a typical person would report. As in: I need more novocain now!

 

[DrZoidberg]

The system has a life of it's own with it's own logic. It's easier if you see pain more as a kind of remote control. Your reptile brain is trying to get you to do stuff. Using pleasure and pain. You'll only feel pain if you're trying to do something that your brain doesn't want you to do. If you're not trying to do it you won't feel the pain. It's really that simple. You can experiment on yourself.

I look at all manner of perception as beginning with sensory input modified with how the brain integrates it into its model of the environment. Feeling good and feeling bad as well as pleasure and pain really come down to anxiety levels. Anxiety/tranquility is all we ever "feel", but colored by the various concepts we have learned to associate it with. Of course there are a few hard coded ones related to survival instincts. But all we really "feel" is the level of anxiety. At its most basic it has to do with conflicts within the brain causing excess energy use and heat generation. Minimizing heat generation is one of the main restrictions on brain development and evolution. My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

I have a hard time convincing myself that boiling water isn't bad for my fingers, even momentarily. At any rate it's not something I want to teach myself to ignore. On the other hand I have taught myself to gradually tolerate, adapt to, and eventually prefer my wintertime house temp at 55F. I tell myself that I burn more calories and save money on fuel oil (a very good thing). Both true enough. If I could just teach myself to enjoy exercising.

All your feelings and sensations can be tracked to very basic neurochemicals. It's all part of the same system. Yes, anxiety to. Anxiety is your genetics way of telling you to do something else. If you persist the anxiety will usually go away. That's what training is partly about.

- - - Updated - - -

Two people reporting a pain level of 5 may not be the same if we had an objective meter of pain, say set at a universal average of 5, because some are more sensitive to pain than other, even individual pain thresholds vary over time. It's not a fixed value.

I'm not saying it will ever be objectively quantifiable. But it does convey some meaning. Only that hypothetically if the context were normalized by taking every factor into consideration it would be directly comparable. In day to day situations that's what we attempt to do. Neurological hypersensitivity to pain is built into the subjective experience so I don't think it would require special consideration. Yes, that person has a lower tolerance, but the subjective pain is-what-it-is in the sense that it conveys the same information as what a typical person would report. As in: I need more novocain now!

It really doesn't. It conveys zero meaning. Researchers have spent plenty of energy studying this. Nerve signals and pain level have zero correlation. You can feel pain even with no signals going to your brain at all. Some people feel no pain even when they're sawing their arm off with a blunt pen knife. There are many examples of both of these.

 

[Underseer]

Theists seem to have trouble understanding how this argument sounds to atheists. Maybe a little reductio ad absurdum will help.

How can people possibly be moral without belief in Santa Claus? Without the threat of not receiving presents on Christmas, people would never choose to be good, therefore morality cannot exist without Santa Claus, therefore Santa Claus is real. QEDuh.

There. I have proved that Santa Claus is real. You can't possibly explain morality without Santa Claus, morality exists, therefore Santa Claus is proved to be real.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theists seem to have trouble understanding how this argument sounds to atheists. Maybe a little reductio ad absurdum will help.

How can people possibly be moral without belief in Santa Claus? Without the threat of not receiving presents on Christmas, people would never choose to be good, therefore morality cannot exist without Santa Claus, therefore Santa Claus is real. QEDuh.

There. I have proved that Santa Claus is real. You can't possibly explain morality without Santa Claus, morality exists, therefore Santa Claus is proved to be real.

What you've proven is that without evolved behaviors constituting "right" and "wrong," gods and religion and Santa Claus are meaningless, not to mention morally bankrupt.

The religious person just has it backwards. Obvious to you and me, but not everyone, unfortunately.

 

[Underseer]

Theists seem to have trouble understanding how this argument sounds to atheists. Maybe a little reductio ad absurdum will help.

How can people possibly be moral without belief in Santa Claus? Without the threat of not receiving presents on Christmas, people would never choose to be good, therefore morality cannot exist without Santa Claus, therefore Santa Claus is real. QEDuh.

There. I have proved that Santa Claus is real. You can't possibly explain morality without Santa Claus, morality exists, therefore Santa Claus is proved to be real.

What you've proven is that without evolved behaviors constituting "right" and "wrong," gods and religion and Santa Claus are meaningless, not to mention morally bankrupt.

The religious person just has it backwards. Obvious to you and me, but not everyone, unfortunately.

The important thing is that you can't explain morality without Santa Claus, and if you try to explain it to me, I will simply refuse to understand, therefore I'm right.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"Good" = less total pain / increased total desire gratification = objective definition of "good" = objectively measurable

You're proving my point.

You know that others have memory, even though you cannot experience someone else's memory. And likewise you know of someone else's pain, if they do something, like scream, to let you know of it. It's a fact, just like memory, or any other objective phenomenon.

If one person experiences it and then reports it to others, then those others know of it, like they know other facts that can be reported to them, even if they don't experience them directly.

You are missing the point even when you state the point yourself!

The point being that cannot experience someone else's conscious thoughts or feeling, emotions or pain, these being subjective, we can only ask what they feel.

They tell us what they feel.

We understand what they feel because we ourselves have had these experiences.

Without our own experience with pain, etc, we would have no frames of reference.

If you had never experienced pain in your life you would have no idea about what someone is experiencing when they report feeling of pain.

I totally agree.

My only point then is that we know the pain exists and is real, and we can say it's a "bad" thing which we want to reduce. And there are some ways to reduce it, even if it's difficult in many cases.

This is factual, or objective reality which can be measured or quantified, even if measurement of it is difficult.

The ultimate ideal/goal is the minimum net sum total of pain to all creatures. We can't measure this precisely, but we can estimate it and do some things to approach closer to the goal.

Likewise net total desire gratification, which we want to increase rather than reduce.

 

[DBT]

"Good" = less total pain / increased total desire gratification = objective definition of "good" = objectively measurable

Your conclusion still doesn't follow the preceding premises. It's an add on. An unjustified leap in logic.

What you could have said being something along the lines of:

1- Good is defined as less pain
2- Less pain increases gratification
3- Less overall pain levels increase pleasure and enjoyment of life.

Conclusion: the definition of "good" is less overall systemic pain with its related increased pleasure and enjoyment of life. The state and condition of pain or its absence, with either diminished or enhanced enjoyment of life being related to the subjective experience of the individual, who may or may not wish to report their experience, hence not objectively accessible to an external observer

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

A person's pain is a fact which can be known by others, objectively, like other facts can be known by being reported.

"Good" = less total pain / increased total desire gratification = objective definition of "good" = objectively measurable

Your conclusion still doesn't follow the preceding premises. It's an add on. An unjustified leap in logic.

What you could have said being something along the lines of:

1- Good is defined as less pain
2- Less pain increases gratification
3- Less overall pain levels increase pleasure and enjoyment of life.

Conclusion: the definition of "good" is less overall systemic pain with its related increased pleasure and enjoyment of life. The state and condition of pain or its absence, with either diminished or enhanced enjoyment of life being related to the subjective experience of the individual, who may or may not wish to report their experience, hence not objectively accessible to an external observer

But it IS objectively accessible to an external observer.

What it's not is DIRECTLY accessible to the observer. It's accessible or knowable to the observer if it is reported. Objectively. Like other reported facts are knowable even if they are not experienced directly.

So someone else's pain is a fact which can be known, but not directly --- only indirectly. Like many facts are known indirectly by being reported.

 

[DBT]

Your conclusion still doesn't follow the preceding premises. It's an add on. An unjustified leap in logic.

What you could have said being something along the lines of:

1- Good is defined as less pain
2- Less pain increases gratification
3- Less overall pain levels increase pleasure and enjoyment of life.

Conclusion: the definition of "good" is less overall systemic pain with its related increased pleasure and enjoyment of life. The state and condition of pain or its absence, with either diminished or enhanced enjoyment of life being related to the subjective experience of the individual, who may or may not wish to report their experience, hence not objectively accessible to an external observer

But it IS objectively accessible to an external observer.

What it's not is DIRECTLY accessible to the observer. It's accessible or knowable to the observer if it is reported. Objectively. Like other reported facts are knowable even if they are not experienced directly.

So someone else's pain is a fact which can be known, but not directly --- only indirectly. Like many facts are known indirectly by being reported.

Yes, that someone is in pain can be understood and known by an external objective observer if the person reports that they are in pain and they are reporting their condition honestly.

But because the objective external observer cannot access the persons experience, he or she cannot measure or know how the pain feels to the person in pain.

They are feeling pain, but it is not measurable by either the external observer or the person in pain.

It's the report that is objective. Anyone can listen to it.

You can't equivocate the two separate and distinct conditions by saying that pain is a measurable objective experience for the listener because the one in pain reports their real experience of pain. It remains a subjective experience.

Anyone in hearing range can hear the report by the person in pain and compare notes as too what they heard and how they assessed the report.

None of the observers/listeners have any access to the experience of pain by the other.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The ultimate ideal/goal is the minimum net sum total of pain to all creatures. We can't measure this precisely, but we can estimate it and do some things to approach closer to the goal.

Likewise net total desire gratification, which we want to increase rather than reduce.

So you're for free heroin to everyone?

 

[Bomb#20]

But it IS objectively accessible to an external observer.

What it's not is DIRECTLY accessible to the observer. It's accessible or knowable to the observer if it is reported. Objectively. Like other reported facts are knowable even if they are not experienced directly.

So someone else's pain is a fact which can be known, but not directly --- only indirectly. Like many facts are known indirectly by being reported.

Yes, that someone is in pain can be understood and known by an external objective observer if the person reports that they are in pain and they are reporting their condition honestly.

But because the objective external observer cannot access the persons experience, he or she cannot measure or know how the pain feels to the person in pain.

They are feeling pain, but it is not measurable by either the external observer or the person in pain.

It's the report that is objective. Anyone can listen to it.

You can't equivocate the two separate and distinct conditions by saying that pain is a measurable objective experience for the listener because the one in pain reports their real experience of pain. It remains a subjective experience.

Anyone in hearing range can hear the report by the person in pain and compare notes as too what they heard and how they assessed the report.

None of the observers/listeners have any access to the experience of pain by the other.

Anya: I wish you felt the pain of a thousand searing pokers boiling your heart in its own juices!

Xander: I know, honey. I totally deserve that.

Anya: I... I wish you had tentacles where your beady eyes should be! I wish your intestines were tied in knots and ripped apart inside your lousy gut!

Xander: They are.

Anya: Really? Right now? Does it hurt?

Xander: God, yes. It hurts so bad it's killing me. Anya, I love you, I want to make this work.

Anya: Those are metaphor intestines! You're not in any real pain!

 

[bilby]

Well at least with all this (pointless) discussion of whether one can objectively measure pain, everyone has apparently abandoned the truly stupid idea that morality has anything to do with gods or religions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well at least with all this (pointless) discussion of whether one can objectively measure pain, everyone has apparently abandoned the truly stupid idea that morality has anything to do with gods or religions.

You beat me to it.

And I disagree that pain can only be subjectively quantified. It can certainly be objectively quantified because there are such things as measurable biological activity other than those actions which cause speech.

 

[Elixir]

Well at least with all this (pointless) discussion of whether one can objectively measure pain, everyone has apparently abandoned the truly stupid idea that morality has anything to do with gods or religions.

You beat me to it.

And I disagree that pain can only be subjectively quantified. It can certainly be objectively quantified because there are such things as measurable biological activity other than those actions which cause speech.

I remember vividly, wondering about this pain thing as a child of no more than 5. That was a while back, to put it mildly. But the surmise I reached then still niggles:
"Maybe it's a zero-sum game (not the words I'd have used as a 5 year old). Maybe every life, despite outward appearances, engenders equal ratios of pleasure/pain."

Of course interference by supernatural disembodied beings could upset that balance, but that was not a possibility that I seriously entertained, even then.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yes, that someone is in pain can be understood and known by an external objective observer if the person reports that they are in pain and they are reporting their condition honestly.

But because the objective external observer cannot access the persons experience, he or she cannot measure or know how the pain feels to the person in pain.

They are feeling pain, but it is not measurable by either the external observer or the person in pain.

It's the report that is objective. Anyone can listen to it.

You can't equivocate the two separate and distinct conditions by saying that pain is a measurable objective experience for the listener because the one in pain reports their real experience of pain. It remains a subjective experience.

Anyone in hearing range can hear the report by the person in pain and compare notes as too what they heard and how they assessed the report.

None of the observers/listeners have any access to the experience of pain by the other.

Anya: I wish you felt the pain of a thousand searing pokers boiling your heart in its own juices!

Xander: I know, honey. I totally deserve that.

Anya: I... I wish you had tentacles where your beady eyes should be! I wish your intestines were tied in knots and ripped apart inside your lousy gut!

Xander: They are.

Anya: Really? Right now? Does it hurt?

Xander: God, yes. It hurts so bad it's killing me. Anya, I love you, I want to make this work.

Anya: Those are metaphor intestines! You're not in any real pain!

Anya is a real bitch. Xander could do so much better.

 

[DBT]

It can certainly be objectively quantified because there are such things as measurable biological activity other than those actions which cause speech.

Measurable biological activity says nothing about how the subject is feeling. The subject may be unconscious, therefore feeling nothing regardless of the biological activity. The perception of pain may wax and wane with the focus of attention while the subject is conscious but distracted.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I disagree that pain can only be subjectively quantified. It can certainly be objectively quantified because there are such things as measurable biological activity other than those actions which cause speech.

Well... science doesn't care about what your opinion of it is or what you think their results should be. Science is correct and you are wrong.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It can certainly be objectively quantified because there are such things as measurable biological activity other than those actions which cause speech.

Measurable biological activity says nothing about how the subject is feeling. The subject may be unconscious, therefore feeling nothing regardless of the biological activity. The perception of pain may wax and wane with the focus of attention while the subject is conscious but distracted.

But isn't that the point, to quantify what they are feeling?

You can certainly also record their subjective take on what they are feeling, but it seems important to have objective criteria with which to relate.

 

[DBT]

Measurable biological activity says nothing about how the subject is feeling. The subject may be unconscious, therefore feeling nothing regardless of the biological activity. The perception of pain may wax and wane with the focus of attention while the subject is conscious but distracted.

But isn't that the point, to quantify what they are feeling?

You can certainly also record their subjective take on what they are feeling, but it seems important to have objective criteria with which to relate.

You can correlate what they report they are feeling in relation to the biological activity being measured, fMRI, EEG, etc, but you can't actually measure what they are feeling or thinking.