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

[Lumpenproletariat]

Someone else's pain can be known INdirectly, even though such a fact is more difficult to verify.

We can measure pain by the loudness of the "Ouch!" INdirect. Louder ouch = greater pain.

That pain, measured indirectly, is a fact of the world, like many other phenomena we can measure. Some direct, some indirect. Either way, it's more factual stuff we observe and measure and that we can respond to.

What if the person is faking?

Then we have bad information in that case. A criminal or witness to a crime can lie, or can report it falsely. That doesn't mean there was no real crime.

You can't know about faking if there are not other cases where there is no faking. In those cases, where the report is NOT faked, we have correct information.

Just because we can be misled does not mean there is not real fact there to know.

With someone else's pain, we have ONLY the report, and so only INdirect knowledge. So, it's more difficult to verify perhaps. Still, that pain is an objective fact, like other facts we know which are reported to us. Often we rely on the reports without witnessing the facts directly.

He just wants some time off work.

Maybe in some cases. Usually there's no such motivation by someone complaining of pain.

When, as a kid once, I witnessed a turkey being butchered, and that turkey "reported" its pain to everyone within half a mile or so, it was probably not faking, seeking "time off" or whatever.

That animal's pain was almost certainly an objective fact, even though it could be known only INdirectly by an observer.

You genuinely believe that you are measuring or assessing pain level, but you are being deceived.

So you think that turkey I witnessed getting butchered really suffered no pain and was only playing a trick on someone?

 

[DBT]

What if the person is faking?

Then we have bad information in that case. A criminal or witness to a crime can lie, or can report it falsely. That doesn't mean there was no real crime.

No, but it does mean that we don't have direct access to another person's pain/feelings/thoughts/motives (or objective measurement) except through verbal report and body language....these being objective but not always reliable.

You can't know about faking if there are not other cases where there is no faking. In those cases, where the report is NOT faked, we have correct information.

That takes corroboration, additional evidence that supports or refutes the report in question.

Just because we can be misled does not mean there is not real fact there to know.

There lies the difficulty. Access to relevant information, insufficient information to determine what actually happened.

With someone else's pain, we have ONLY the report, and so only INdirect knowledge. So, it's more difficult to verify perhaps. Still, that pain is an objective fact, like other facts we know which are reported to us. Often we rely on the reports without witnessing the facts directly.

It's not objective to the observer because he or she has no ability to access someone else's experience.

The person experiencing the pain, if true, is indeed experiencing pain but has no objective means of measuring or quantifying that pain except to compare it to past experiences and rate it accordingly.

When, as a kid once, I witnessed a turkey being butchered, and that turkey "reported" its pain to everyone within half a mile or so, it was probably not faking, seeking "time off" or whatever.

That animal's pain was almost certainly an objective fact, even though it could be known only INdirectly by an observer.

So you think that turkey I witnessed getting butchered really suffered no pain and was only playing a trick on someone?

Nobody is claiming that pain is not real to the one experiencing pain, or that animals don't feel pain, just that external observers cannot access, quantify or measure the pain/feelings or thoughts of others.

There is no doubt that the Turkey your saw felt pain but you don't know how it felt for the animal.

You may be projecting your own experiences by believe that the Turkey felt much the same as you would feel, but you don't know. You may be anthropomorphizing.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Then we have bad information in that case. A criminal or witness to a crime can lie, or can report it falsely. That doesn't mean there was no real crime.

No, but it does mean that we don't have direct access to another person's pain/feelings/thoughts/motives (or objective measurement) except through verbal report and body language....these being objective but not always reliable.

The point is that we know of someone else's pain and can deal with it. Despite the difficulty of verifying etc.

So it's a fact of the real world, and it makes sense to say we want to reduce the total net pain.

You can't know about faking if there are not other cases where there is no faking. In those cases, where the report is NOT faked, we have correct information.

That takes corroboration, additional evidence that supports or refutes the report in question.

That's true of many facts. Though we need corroboration, still it's objective fact, not experienced directly, but INdirectly. We know of it as fact or real event and can calculate the need to deal with it, try to reduce it, etc.

Just because we can be misled does not mean there is not real fact there to know.

There lies the difficulty. Access to relevant information, insufficient information to determine what actually happened.

Often the information is sufficient to draw a conclusion and respond to it as a real event like many other real events.

With someone else's pain, we have ONLY the report, and so only INdirect knowledge. So, it's more difficult to verify perhaps. Still, that pain is an objective fact, like other facts we know which are reported to us. Often we rely on the reports without witnessing the facts directly.

It's not objective to the observer because he or she has no ability to access someone else's experience.

It IS objective. Unless you're just quibbling over what "objective" means. We can respond to it just like any other facts, some of which are known only INdirectly.

The person experiencing the pain, if true, is indeed experiencing pain but has no objective means of measuring or quantifying that pain except to compare it to past experiences and rate it accordingly.

The point is that others can know of it, like they know of many facts, and can respond to it. It plays a part in our deciding what is the right thing to do. I.e., choosing a course of action based on the idea of reducing total pain/suffering.

When, as a kid once, I witnessed a turkey being butchered, and that turkey "reported" its pain to everyone within half a mile or so, it was probably not faking, seeking "time off" or whatever.

That animal's pain was almost certainly an objective fact, even though it could be known only INdirectly by an observer.

So you think that turkey I witnessed getting butchered really suffered no pain and was only playing a trick on someone?

Nobody is claiming that pain is not real to the one experiencing pain, or that animals don't feel pain, just that external observers cannot access, quantify or measure the pain/feelings or thoughts of others.

For any practical purpose they can. They can judge how serious it is and decide whether to take any action to reduce that other person's pain. There's enough information to determine how serious it is and what can be done about it. It's practical to try to reduce the pain, because we know of it, can measure it INdirectly, reasonably enough to act on it. And we can argue about whether it's serious enough to take certain steps, because we have some objective information about it.

There is no doubt that the Turkey you saw felt pain but you don't know how it felt for the animal.

I know enough to be able to add it to the total pain being suffered by creatures, and to judge in some cases if there is a way to reduce the total pain to animals, or whether reducing it is worth the cost. So there's a practical point of knowing of the pain and estimating how bad it is in order to decide if anything can be done to reduce it, and in some cases doing something to reduce it.

So for practical purposes, it's part of the total facts known and which we might act upon, and which can be added to our total knowledge of facts or real events.

You may be projecting your own experiences by believe that the Turkey felt much the same as you would feel, but you don't know.

That can be the case for many ordinary facts we know.

The point is that the idea of reducing the total net pain is legitimate, and we can make reasonable estimates of how great the pain is, and we do sometimes act on this knowledge, even though it's all INdirect knowledge. Even so, it's real fact and real events we can interact with.

You may be anthropomorphizing.

Whatever, there isn't any mistake. No one is making a mistake in thinking animals feel pain, or in trying to calculate the total pain or judge how much is too much or if there's a reasonable way to reduce it.

 

[DBT]

It IS objective. Unless you're just quibbling over what "objective" means. We can respond to it just like any other facts, some of which are known only INdirectly.

'Objective' is not open to quibbling. It has a standard meaning in relation to evidence;

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> Merriam Webster.

Nobody has access to someone else's experience. We rely on report and description.

The point is that others can know of it, like they know of many facts, and can respond to it. It plays a part in our deciding what is the right thing to do. I.e., choosing a course of action based on the idea of reducing total pain/suffering.

Others only know what they are told, which may or may not be accurate, may or may not relate to one's own experience with similar thing....which may be true, or may not be true, all depending on corroboration; the character and reliability of the narrator, the circumstances, the age, experience and accuracy of the narrator, etc.

Which comes down to second hand information.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Probability (not certainty) is what most choices are based upon, and for this INdirect knowledge is sufficient.

It IS objective. Unless you're just quibbling over what "objective" means. We can respond to it just like any other facts, some of which are known only INdirectly.

'Objective' is not open to quibbling. It has a standard meaning in relation to evidence;

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> Merriam Webster.

Nothing in that definition says you can't know of someone else's pain indirectly. You directly receive the report from the one who has the direct experience.

Nobody has access to someone else's experience.

But you know of the experience indirectly, by means of the report which is objectively known.

INdirectly there's access. Based on their report. We can know of their experience, such as pain, and can quantify it. And so we can treat it as a fact of life which we know and can respond to, even if we don't have direct "access" to it. Even so, we can do something about it and thus change it, like we can change many factual conditions.

We rely on report and description.

And thus know of it as fact and make decisions whether to act on it. So that reducing the net sum total of pain or increasing the net sum total of desire gratification/pleasure does make sense and is the guide for resolving "right/wrong" or "good/evil" questions or choices.

The point is that others can know of it, like they know of many facts, and can respond to it. It plays a part in our deciding what is the right thing to do. I.e., choosing a course of action based on the idea of reducing total pain/suffering.

Others only know what they are told, which may or may not be accurate, may or may not relate to one's own experience with similar thing....which may be true, or may not be true, all depending on corroboration;

So, the knowledge of it is not 100% certain, just like most of our "knowledge" is less than 100% absolute certainty. Still we act on it, as fact which we know and can make decisions about.

the character and reliability of the narrator, the circumstances, the age, experience and accuracy of the narrator, etc.

You can have this kind of skepticism about most of our knowledge, about which there is always some doubt. But still the probability is high enough for us to act on it.

Which comes down to second hand information.

Whatever you call it, we can base decisions on this, or make choices about what is "right" / "wrong" etc. Despite the uncertainty in many cases.

So my original point is correct, that "right" / "wrong" etc. is based on trying to produce the greatest total of desire gratification/pleasure or minimum total of pain, which can be known and quantified INdirectly and used to base decisions on, like most of our actions and choices are based on limited knowledge.

If this is not true, then you could not judge that it's wrong to torture someone. Or torture animals. To say torture is wrong, or to make it illegal, is to claim knowledge about someone else's pain, even though you cannot experience it directly.

 

[DBT]

'Objective' is not open to quibbling. It has a standard meaning in relation to evidence;

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> Merriam Webster.

Nothing in that definition says you can't know of someone else's pain indirectly. You directly receive the report from the one who has the direct experience.

Just as you say, you directly/objectively receive a report of pain. The report is indeed objective, you can record it, there may be others present to confirm it, etc but you can't actually know what the person is feeling except to compare the report to what you yourself have experienced.

This makes it a subjective approximation of the other persons reported pain.

But you know of the experience indirectly, by means of the report which is objectively known.

INdirectly there's access. Based on their report. We can know of their experience, such as pain, and can quantify it. And so we can treat it as a fact of life which we know and can respond to, even if we don't have direct "access" to it. Even so, we can do something about it and thus change it, like we can change many factual conditions.

You only know what you are told, which, if taken as a truthful and accurate description is compared to your own experience and rated accordingly. You have a good idea of what they are experiencing but you don't have objective access or knowledge of their experience, which is probably comparable to your own experiences but not necessarily identical to what you believe.