Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[seer]

No process guarantees outcomes, Seer. If my reasoning is sound, and my premises true - my conclusions will be valid. If not - they won't. Likewise, if I happen to follow a person who has sound reasoning, and the premises are true - then the conclusion will be valid. But I cannot know that if I am simply "following the herd." Not to mention that a premise that is true for them may be false for me, creating further problems.

There you go again! Who has the "true" premises? You? The Maoist? The Stalinist? Where do these true moral premises come from?

Lacking the knowledge of what reasoning a monkey is capable of, I cannot answer the question.

Well read the link...

As you wish, Seer. As I said - I'm not fully aligned with Kolberg's philosophy. I find his morality categorizations to be developmentally sound and beneficial in assessing one's place (from a maturity perspective). The rest I leave to you.

Carp what do mean as you wish? If you don't hold that there is a universal and non-relative notion of justice then what are you doing but spinning your wheels with your own private notion of justice? Kolberg's philosophy is about reasoning to discover a non-relative form of justice.

The six stages

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)

The highest being Universal ethical principles

[carpedm9587]

There you go again! Who has the "true" premises? You? The Maoist? The Stalinist? Where do these true moral premises come from?

There you go again, trying to squeeze absolute/objective elements from a relative/subjective process.

A premise is true for me if it aligns with the reality for me. It is true for you if it aligns to the reality for you.

Well read the link...

I cannot claim I read it deeply and thoroughly, but I did review it. I see no part of the article that tells me what the reasoning capabilities of a monkey are. What it reports is observed behavior. So I cannot answer if the sense of fairness is "intuitive or reasoned" without that information. As far as I know - nobody can - until/if we have the ability to converse with the monkey.

Carp what do mean as you wish?

I mean you appear to think I can find no value any part of Kolberg's work if I do not value the entire thing. It may be part of the binary thinking you tend to exhibit. I'm not having any difficulty valuing the part I find of value, and rejecting the rest. If you find that "inconsistent," so be it. I'm not going to try to convince you that I find value in his six-level framework. If you don't - then don't. I was attempting to provide a resource I thought you might find of value.

If you don't hold that there is a universal and non-relative notion of justice then what are you doing but spinning your wheels with your own private notion of justice?

The concept of justice is fairly generally understood and defined. It's part of our language. The application of that concept to the everyday is where we tend to differ - so we each are, in effect, applying our own private notion of justice. For me, for example, it is not "just" that 26 men control as much wealth as one half the population of the planet (3.5B people). Most conservatives see no "justice" problem there.

Kolberg's philosophy is about reasoning to discover a non-relative form of justice.

The six stages

The highest being Universal ethical principles

Yes - and as I noted "universal" need not mean "absolute/objective." Kolberg may think so, and I will disagree with him exactly as I disagree with you.

[seer]

There you go again, trying to squeeze absolute/objective elements from a relative/subjective process.

A premise is true for me if it aligns with the reality for me. It is true for you if it aligns to the reality for you.

Then why even use the word true? True to me means a fact, by definition: conformable to an essential reality. Not just your reality or my reality. We are running into that nonsense of your truth or my truth, etc...

I cannot claim I read it deeply and thoroughly, but I did review it. I see no part of the article that tells me what the reasoning capabilities of a monkey are. What it reports is observed behavior. So I cannot answer if the sense of fairness is "intuitive or reasoned" without that information. As far as I know - nobody can - until/if we have the ability to converse with the monkey.

The point is our sense of fairness may be more intuitive than you give credit for.

I mean you appear to think I can find no value any part of Kolberg's work if I do not value the entire thing. It may be part of the binary thinking you tend to exhibit. I'm not having any difficulty valuing the part I find of value, and rejecting the rest. If you find that "inconsistent," so be it. I'm not going to try to convince you that I find value in his six-level framework. If you don't - then don't. I was attempting to provide a resource I thought you might find of value.

But all the lower stages are leading to the highest most complete stage, the realization of universal, non-relative moral truths. Given his criterion my moral reasoning is superior to yours. I win!

The concept of justice is fairly generally understood and defined. It's part of our language. The application of that concept to the everyday is where we tend to differ - so we each are, in effect, applying our own private notion of justice. For me, for example, it is not "just" that 26 men control as much wealth as one half the population of the planet (3.5B people). Most conservatives see no "justice" problem there.

Correct, I see no problem there if the money was earned legally. The problem is a lot of it was not earned legally. And for instance, I see killing the unborn in the womb as unjust. That is the actual death of viable human beings.

Yes - and as I noted "universal" need not mean "absolute/objective." Kolberg may think so, and I will disagree with him exactly as I disagree with you.

I think if it is non-relative then it would follow that it is objective. But the bottom line Carp is that your moral reasoning doesn't get us anywhere apart from your private notions of justice or fairness. It certainly does not tell us that your reasoning leads to a more correct or insightful understanding of ethics than a 2,000 year old book or Fred's or the herd's opinion. Your claim to superiority is logically unfounded.

[carpedm9587]

Then why even use the word true?

Because it is.

True to me means a fact, by definition: conformable to an essential reality. Not just your reality or my reality. We are running into that nonsense of your truth or my truth, etc...

Interesting that you jumped to the second definition. Did you miss the first one? "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs." It is an actual state of affairs that I like pizza a LOT. It is also relative and subjective to me. It is an actual state of affairs that I value life. It is also relative and subjective to me. No problem. And no more or less true than "the sun rises in the east" or "hydrogen atoms have one electron" or "2 + 2 = 4 in any numbering base above base 3." It just happens to be relatively true to me. The statement about the sun is relatively true to the earth. The statement about hydrogen atoms is relatively true to our universe (I think). The 2+2 statement is absolutely true. All of them are "true."

The point is our sense of fairness may be more intuitive than you give credit for.

Knowing a bit about child development - you would have a hard time making that case. The concept of the "golden rule" begins to emerge in children when they begin to be able to think. Before then, their universe is dominated by themselves at the center - a bundle of need wanting to be cared for. "Fairness" and "reciprocity" begins to emerge as children learn "how things work." It becomes evident as we live in society that "you have to give some to get some" and "what goes around comes around" and all the rest.

But even if it IS intuitive, I have to ask "so what?" It would not be a major surprise to me to discover that the "golden rule" is hardwired into us. After all, we have been living in society for millennia. Safety in numbers could naturally lead to an evolution of that being a built-in part of how we reason. I have not seen any studies or research about this, but I suppose it is possible.

But all the lower stages are leading to the highest most complete stage, the realization of universal, non-relative moral truths. Given his criterion my moral reasoning is superior to yours. I win!

If winning is so important to you, Seer - by all means - take the win

Correct, I see no problem there if the money was earned legally.

What is "legal" is not always what is "just."

The problem is a lot of it was not earned legally.

And a lot of it was - but not justly.

And for instance, I see killing the unborn in the womb as unjust. That is the actual death of viable human beings.

I agree with you about abortion, which is why I would love to find practical ways to reduce the carnage. Unfortunately, both sides are entrenched - so the war continues on and the carnage continues on.

I think if it is non-relative then it would follow that it is objective. But the bottom line Carp is that your moral reasoning doesn't get us anywhere apart from your private notions of justice or fairness. It certainly does not tell us that your reasoning leads to a more correct or insightful understanding of ethics than a 2,000 year old book or Fred's or the herd's opinion. Your claim to superiority is logically unfounded.

So you're back to "relative/subjective frameworks cannot produce absolute/objective results." I've agreed to that many, many, many times, Seer. Repeating it over, and over, and over, and over again cannot make me agree with you more. The "problem" is that you are asserting this is a "problem" without showing it to be so. All you can do is continue to repeat the refrain, in various forms, and in the form of a complaint.

I truly think you do not understand that you haven't made an argument yet. You've just repeated a definition, ad infinitum.

[seer]

Because it is.

Interesting that you jumped to the second definition. Did you miss the first one? "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs." It is an actual state of affairs that I like pizza a LOT. It is also relative and subjective to me. It is an actual state of affairs that I value life. It is also relative and subjective to me. No problem. And no more or less true than "the sun rises in the east" or "hydrogen atoms have one electron" or "2 + 2 = 4 in any numbering base above base 3." It just happens to be relatively true to me. The statement about the sun is relatively true to the earth. The statement about hydrogen atoms is relatively true to our universe (I think). The 2+2 statement is absolutely true. All of them are "true."

Then you need to make it clear that it is only what is subjectively true for you.

But even if it IS intuitive, I have to ask "so what?" It would not be a major surprise to me to discover that the "golden rule" is hardwired into us. After all, we have been living in society for millennia. Safety in numbers could naturally lead to an evolution of that being a built-in part of how we reason. I have not seen any studies or research about this, but I suppose it is possible.

OK

If winning is so important to you, Seer - by all means - take the win

Well I did reach the sixth and final stage, which is the highest in his model. And you are still back with the Neanderthals...

What is "legal" is not always what is "just."



And a lot of it was - but not justly.

Is this just your truth again?

I agree with you about abortion, which is why I would love to find practical ways to reduce the carnage. Unfortunately, both sides are entrenched - so the war continues on and the carnage continues on.

I wonder, would you be willing to institute laws to curb to much wealth in too few hands? Would you just as willing to institute laws to curb abortions?

So you're back to "relative/subjective frameworks cannot produce absolute/objective results." I've agreed to that many, many, many times, Seer. Repeating it over, and over, and over, and over again cannot make me agree with you more. The "problem" is that you are asserting this is a "problem" without showing it to be so. All you can do is continue to repeat the refrain, in various forms, and in the form of a complaint.

I truly think you do not understand that you haven't made an argument yet. You've just repeated a definition, ad infinitum.

What are you talking about Carp? That was not my point at all - which was that your moral reasoning is not logically superior for discovering what is ethical or not than the morality of the herd or a 2,000 year old book. I mean you were the one claiming superiority through your mental acumen, but the whole argument was a non-sequitur.

[carpedm9587]

Then you need to make it clear that it is only what is subjectively true for you.

I don't think I've ever said otherwise, Seer. Our disagreement is that something I believe is "relative" you believe is "absolute."

OK

Well I did reach the sixth and final stage, which is the highest in his model. And you are still back with the Neanderthals...

Not really - but it if makes you feel better to think so... have at it.

Is this just your truth again?

Mine and a lot of my fellow humans. Justice/balance/fairness are all of a piece. But there will be wide disagreement on how they apply in the real world.

I wonder, would you be willing to institute laws to curb to much wealth in too few hands?

I would be willing to establish laws requiring a living wage for all people who work. So I would set a floor on income, not a cap on it.

Would you just as willing to institute laws to curb abortions?

No - for reasons I have already articulated. Insanity is sometimes defined as "continuously repeating the same action expecting a different outcome."

What are you talking about Carp?

Yeah - I kind of expected that. After all this time, I truly don't think you understand what I am talking about.

That was not my point at all - which was that your moral reasoning is not logically superior for discovering what is ethical or not than the morality of the herd or a 2,000 year old book. I mean you were the one claiming superiority through your mental acumen, but the whole argument was a non-sequitur.

For some reason, my arguments continue to fly right past you, Seer. At this point, I don't think repeating them will get us anywhere. For whatever reason - you're not understanding the basic points.

[seer]

For some reason, my arguments continue to fly right past you, Seer. At this point, I don't think repeating them will get us anywhere. For whatever reason - you're not understanding the basic points.

And after all this time you have not told me where I am off. Why, logically, does your moral reasoning lead to a more correct or insightful understanding of ethics than the moral code of the herd or what is found in a 2,000 year old book. You can not answer the question. I grant that the moral reasoning process may personally satisfy you, but that tells us nothing about the correctness of the conclusions.

[carpedm9587]

And after all this time you have not told me where I am off.

If you can make that statement - then you have not understood much of anything I've said.

Why, logically, does your moral reasoning lead to a more correct or insightful understanding of ethics than the moral code of the herd or what is found in a 2,000 year old book. You can not answer the question.

I can - and I have, several times. Go back to my previous posts. You'll find it repeated several times, if you look for it.

I grant that the moral reasoning process may personally satisfy you, but that tells us nothing about the absolute/objective correctness of the conclusions.

While it is not explicit in your sentence, based on your previous posts, I suspect your statement is missing the words I inserted above (bolded so people would know it came from me). If I am correct, then you are back to your same non-objection. If history is any indication - you still will not see it.

[seer]

If you can make that statement - then you have not understood much of anything I've said.



I can - and I have, several times. Go back to my previous posts. You'll find it repeated several times, if you look for it.



While it is not explicit in your sentence, based on your previous posts, I suspect your statement is missing the words I inserted above (bolded so people would know it came from me). If I am correct, then you are back to your same non-objection. If history is any indication - you still will not see it.

So just admit that your moral reasoning powers are not better or more insightful for understanding ethics than what we would get from the herd or a 2,000 year old book.

[carpedm9587]

So just admit that your moral reasoning powers are not better or more insightful for understanding ethics than what we would get from the herd or a 2,000 year old book.

My moral conclusions are "better" for me because they are rooted in what I value. In general, actual moral reasoning is "better" in so far as it means I am actually working from my value structure, using reason, to come to moral conclusions. Those who simply hitch their wagon to "what Fred thinks" are now married to "Fred's moral reasoning" and they have no idea what that is, or if Fred just hitched his wagon to someone else - ad infinitum. So a deliberate, moral reasoning process has a far better chance of arriving at a reasoned moral conclusion than "what Fred thinks" because you cannot even know if Fred' conclusion is "reasoned."

The difference is basically this: someone who sits down, works out their budget and uses that information to make a decision about what house they will buy is engaging in a better process than someone who looks at what Fred bought and does the same thing. They are more likely to buy something they can afford. If it possible "buying what Fred did" will get them a house they can afford? Sure. But it's statistical roulette with no reasoning behind it.

If you cannot see how this is "better," then...

And - I have never claimed I produce "absolute moral truths."

And you still haven't made an actual argument. You just keep repeating definitions. But you're still not seeing it.

[seer]

My moral conclusions are "better" for me because they are rooted in what I value. In general, actual moral reasoning is "better" in so far as it means I am actually working from my value structure, using reason, to come to moral conclusions. Those who simply hitch their wagon to "what Fred thinks" are now married to "Fred's moral reasoning" and they have no idea what that is, or if Fred just hitched his wagon to someone else - ad infinitum. So a deliberate, moral reasoning process has a far better chance of arriving at a reasoned moral conclusion than "what Fred thinks" because you cannot even know if Fred' conclusion is "reasoned."

What does that to do with whether something like murder is wrong? For instance, Fred thinks, because he was taught by the herd, that murder is immoral. You, being a good Maoist, reasons that murdering dissidents is a moral good for the sake of social cohesion. You have worked this through rationally, Fred hasn't, he just takes what he was taught at face value. So why on earth would anyone assume that the reasoning process logically gives anyone greater moral insight?

[carpedm9587]

What does that to do with whether something like murder is wrong?

I don't have a great deal of difficulty going from my value for life to "murder is wrong."

For instance, Fred thinks, because he was taught by the herd, that murder is immoral.

Yes - Fred can accidentally stumble into a moral position that aligns with what he values by "following the herd." He can just as easily not.

You, being a good Maoist, reasons that murdering dissidents is a moral good for the sake of social cohesion.

If the Maoist is reasoning from what he/she actually values, and his/her reasoning is without error - they can indeed arrive at this conclusion - which will be rooted in their valuing and reasoning and will be seen as "better" by them.

You have worked this through rationally, Fred hasn't, he just takes what he was taught at face value. So why on earth would anyone assume that the reasoning process logically gives anyone greater moral insight?

From the absolute position that is your framework - it doesn't. But then I never said moral frameworks were absolute - so you have gone full circle to complaining that "relative/subjective frameworks cannot arrive at absolute conclusions."

And you still don't see that you have not made an argument.

And I have come to the conclusion that for whatever reason, you can't see it. You seem to think you've made an actual argument. And you still haven't.

[seer]

Yes - Fred can accidentally stumble into a moral position that aligns with what he values by "following the herd." He can just as easily not.

But what he values is also what he was taught by the herd to value, you value life because the herd taught you to value life (your Christian culture). You may now reason that that is the correct position, but you are only using reason to justify a pre-existing bias. You are just as much a child of the herd and group think Carp as anyone else.

If the Maoist is reasoning from what he/she actually values, and his/her reasoning is without error - they can indeed arrive at this conclusion - which will be rooted in their valuing and reasoning and will be seen as "better" by them.

Bingo! So the moral reasoning process does not lead to greater moral insight. Unless you believe that killing your fellow man by the truck load over political differences is an insightful moral position.

From the absolute position that is your framework - it doesn't. But then I never said moral frameworks were absolute - so you have gone full circle to complaining that "relative/subjective frameworks cannot arrive at absolute conclusions."

And you still don't see that you have not made an argument.

And I have come to the conclusion that for whatever reason, you can't see it. You seem to think you've made an actual argument. And you still haven't.

Let's focus on what this argument is about, not what you wrongly think it is about. You brought up this moral reasoning thing, as if that was a superior way of understanding ethics. In your ethically relative world that does not follow - in the least. It is a point of pride for you, to make you feel superior to six pack Fred who merely follows the moral tenets he grew up with. But your moral reasoning process is not superior, it does not lead to a better or more insightful understanding ethics than Fred's, or the Maoist's. Your process exists for one goal Carp - to feed your ego...

[carpedm9587]

But what he values is also what he was taught by the herd to value, you value life because the herd taught you to value life (your Christian culture).

What we value comes from a variety of sources, not just "the herd." It comes from family, friends, community, religious upbringing (various herds), as well as personal experience, and some of it I believe is actually innate. Value for life is a great example - for all things, their own existence is (normally) perceived as a good.

You may now reason that that is the correct position, but you are only using reason to justify a pre-existing bias. You are just as much a child of the herd and group think Carp as anyone else.

What we value is the bedrock for our moral reasoning. From that we reason to moral/immoral actions. There is a significant difference between having our value-base influenced (in art) by our environment (including the herd), and deciding to abandon moral reasoning to align our moral decisions to "what the herd thinks."

So a healthy moral reasoning process is: My value-base -> reasoning -> my moral decisions.
An unhealthy one is: Someone else's moral decisions -> my moral decisions

The first can be (and usually is) influenced by the herd. The second is complete subjection to the herd.

Bingo! So the moral reasoning process does not lead to greater moral insight.

Assuming they have reasoned properly, and the conclusion is based on what they value, they will have achieved "greater moral insight" for themselves. That does not mean they have achieved "greater moral insight" for anyone else.

Unless, of course, you are trying to achieve "greater moral insight" in an "absolute" sense, in which case your argument is (again) that "relative/subjective morality does not produce absolute/objective results." I already have agreed with that. I know that. I don't claim it does. I never have. You still haven't answered "so what?" All you do is keep repeating the mantra.

Unless you believe that killing your fellow man by the truck load over political differences is an insightful moral position.

I do not - which is why I will see their moral decision as inferior. They will, of course, see mine as inferior. That's how it works. I see your stance against homosexuality as
"immoral." You see my acceptance of a gay lifestyle as "perfectly normal" as "immoral." Opposing conclusions happen all the time. And you will note they happen in both the relative/subjective framework and the absolute/objective framework. The only difference is WHY they are opposite.

For someone doing actual moral reasoning, they can be opposite because they are rooted in different basic valuing, or because someone is not reasoning properly (invalid reasoning).

For someone "following the herd," the can be opposite because they are following different herds, or because the "herd" they are following is actually a long-dead herd and all that remains is the fragments of copies of their writings from anther culture and tongue - so their are different interpretations of what "the herd" thought was "moral."

Let's focus on what this argument is about, not what you wrongly think it is about. You brought up this moral reasoning thing, as if that was a superior way of understanding ethics.

It is an obviously more mature way of reasoning morally.

In your ethically relative world that does not follow - in the least.

Of course it does.

It is a point of pride for you, to make you feel superior to six pack Fred who merely follows the moral tenets he grew up with. But your moral reasoning process is not superior, it does not lead to a better or more insightful understanding ethics than Fred's, or the Maoist's. Your process exists for one goal Carp - to feed your ego...

It's a simple question, Seer. Which do you think is a more mature/adult way for a human being to function:

1) Think for yourself
2) Try to figure out what others think and blindly follow it

I suspect most people would take 1). I suspect part of you knows 1) is a more mature way to function. But the fact is that absolute/objective moralizers who are "biblically-based" are actually doing 2).

It's no more complex than that. There is no claim that 1) will arrive at common conclusions (we have other ways of dealing with that). There is no claim that 2) can't result in moral choices I (and/or others) would find "good." There is no claim to perfection in either approach. Intuitively, someone who is "thinking for themselves" is simply engaging in morality in a more mature way than someone that is "following the herd."

The herd-follower will blindly go wherever the herd goes. Their only question is, "what does the herd think?" If the herd says "kill the Jews," they will kill the Jews. If the herd says "save the babies," they will save the babies. If the herd says "reject the homosexuals" they will reject the homosexuals. There is no avenue for reasoning. Someone would have to convince the entire herd to change. And when the herd has been dead for centuries - the only option is to convince them that they have misunderstood the intention of the herd. Look how successful THAT has been.

The self-actualized moralizer may indeed come to a "bad" conclusion (to me) as well, but because that conclusion is based on consideration of what is valued and a reasoning process, there is an avenue for conversation. I can attempt to influence what they value. If we value the same, I can attempt to show them errors in their reasoning. If I cannot do either, and I still disagree with their conclusions, then other steps are taken to protect my moral framework.

This is not that complex.

As for being a point of pride - of course it is. Everyone finds the things they have selected fr their lives to be "better" in some fashion - or they would chose something else. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to be proud of my accomplishments. Aren't you proud that you "obey your god?" Don't you think it's the "right thing to do?" Isn't it a point of pride to you to lord your grasp of "absolute/objective" moral norms over those poor pitiful fools that think morality is relative/subjective? If you don't - then you should reconsider your choice of words. You come across (to me) as equally proud of your moral backbone.

[Sparko]

Seer, just give up. Trying to nail down Carp is like nailing smoke to jello floating on a churning sea.