[DrTodd13]

Is the following one of your accepted axioms "One should not do things that are wrong"? If so, how do you define "wrong" such that it isn't circularly "those things one should not do." One thing seems clear, that even if you accept this axiom, it cannot provide any tool with which to differentiate good and bad actions and therefore you need at least one more axiom to aide in this differentiation. What would these additional axioms be for you?

However, assume for a moment that I deny the validity of this axiom and that I rationally see no reason to accept it. Could a person who claims to be rational then try to convince me otherwise? Here's the Catch-22, how can a rational person try to get me to believe something for which (by definition) there is no proof? One conclusion you could draw is that the most logical person in the world should believe absolutely nothing because all knowledge is ultimately based on axioms and as self-apparent as many of them appear, we really have no proof that they are true.

[helene_t]

If one can avoid doing wrong things simply by doing nothing (i.e. failure to good is less severe than doing bad), then "you should not do wrong" is a case for passivity c.q. risk-aversion.

Also, it may be seen as a case against selfishness, or against ends-justify-the-means.

More generally, there must be certain things we all agree on, commonly agreed-on axioms to which our discussions can refer. I've sometimes debated with people who claim not to be worried about nuclear war etc. because what does it matter if life on Earth goes extinct? Who says it's "good" that there is life on Earth? And how do you know that 2+2=4, ok you say that you can derive the equation from certain axioms so the real assertion is that 2+2=4 follows from those axioms, but how do you know that the rules of inference are valid? Btw, how do you know that anything exists, couldnt everything be an illusion?

Such reservations may be true but they are not very fruitful.

[barmar]

Sloth is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, so clearly someone thinks that doing nothing would be wrong.

By definition, axioms can't be proved, they have to be accepted a priori. This generally requires resorting to intuition or common sense. In some cases, it's an arbitrary choice (e.g. the two forms of non-Euclidean geometry come from replacing Euclid's parallel axiom with a different version). If you're talking about morality and ethics, the axioms come from a concensus of the community. Actually, I guess this is true even for mathematical axioms -- it's still a concensus.

[luke warm]

barmar, on Sep 28 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

~~If you're talking about morality and ethics, the axioms come from a concensus of the community. Actually, I guess this is true even for mathematical axioms -- it's still a concensus.

that's the debate i've had (or tried to) on here many times... if morality and ethics is simply consensus, then what is moral is determined by your place of residence... you can broaden it out, i guess... for example, the 'consensus' of europe was that killing jews was immoral, hitler killed jews, ergo... how far does this broadening go?

we come back to, imo, morality being one of two things - either might makes right else there is a higher power whose attributes define morality

[Winstonm]

Isn't the concept of morality itself axiomatic?

Quote

if you accept this axiom, it cannot provide any tool with which to differentiate good and bad actions and therefore you need at least one more axiom to aide in this differentiation. What would these additional axioms be for you?

To base choice of actions on those things which over time are self-proven to produce positive consequences.

[Winstonm]

Quote

we come back to, imo, morality being one of two things - either might makes right else there is a higher power whose attributes define morality

Defining attributes of god places finite boundaries on the definition of god; if god is infinite, there can be no finite boundaries; if there are no finite boundaries, there can be no finite knowledge.

Infinite morals of god would thus be impossible to define by finite attributes.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Sep 29 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

Quote

we come back to, imo, morality being one of two things - either might makes right else there is a higher power whose attributes define morality

Defining attributes of god places finite boundaries on the definition of god; if god is infinite, there can be no finite boundaries; if there are no finite boundaries, there can be no finite knowledge.

Infinite morals of god would thus be impossible to define by finite attributes.

i don't think that's the case, winston... take the Godly attribute of knowledge, or intelligence.. if God is omniscient then he is, by definition, *all* knowing... unless you're saying that being omni in his attributes is limiting those attributes... is that what you're saying?

in any case, if morality isn't defined by God's attributes, then it is a matter of might makes right, correct?

Quote

To base choice of actions on those things which over time are self-proven to produce positive consequences.

over how long a period of time? that implies that at some point in time mankind will be moral, or at least that man's choices will produce beneficial results, because the opposite actions will have ceased... is that what you mean?

[Winstonm]

Quote

unless you're saying that being omni in his attributes is limiting those attributes... is that what you're saying?

I'll try again. I mean that for humans to pick out x,y, and z as attributes of god limits - by the very action of making choices - attributes that cannot be limited in an infinite being as an infinite being would contain an infinite variety. It is the "attributing to" that causes the disconnection because the very nature of attributing anything other than totality is limiting. Am I making any sense here to anyone other than myself?

Quote

if morality isn't defined by God's attributes, then it is a matter of might makes right, correct?

Not in my understanding. The problem we have with this discourse is the differentiation of perspective - you continue to use the concepts of "right and wrong" and "moral", while I believe there is a natural law that is actions and consequences that has no judgemental properties to it.

In my perspective, Might is Might.
Right is the opposite of left.

[DrTodd13]

luke warm, on Sep 29 2007, 05:54 AM, said:

we come back to, imo, morality being one of two things - either might makes right else there is a higher power whose attributes define morality

I think the phrase should be something like "might makes possible" rather than "might makes right." If there is an objective morality then perhaps it is impossible for humans to figure it out and so we fall back on the happiness of the masses (or the happiness of those with guns) as a measure of goodness. I don't think that people really mean that good behavior is that which is sanctioned by those with the most guns. What they really mean is that if you want to live you are going to live by the rules of those willing to kill you for disobeying them.

[DrTodd13]

Winstonm, on Sep 29 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

Isn't the concept of morality itself axiomatic?

Quote

if you accept this axiom, it cannot provide any tool with which to differentiate good and bad actions and therefore you need at least one more axiom to aide in this differentiation. What would these additional axioms be for you?

To base choice of actions on those things which over time are self-proven to produce positive consequences.

You haven't made any progress with this suggestion. You now how to define what a positive consequence is. Are more humans better than less? Does human misery matter? Why does anything matter? If you take the view that the universe is largely a machine that has always been and progresses from one state to the next largely deterministically but with some quantum mechanical randomness then I see no reason to believe that one state is superior to any other. Basically, without something transcendent, I see no reason to assign value to anything...the concept is meaningless.

Ultimately, the path most people take (I think) goes down the road to an axiom like "goodness is that which maximizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." Under this axiom, if the net happiness of the earth were to increase as the result of the slaughter of some minority then that would be acceptable. People may agree to the axiom but not to its logical conclusion and want to start inserting caveats into the axiom but I don't see how to get to the axiom "it is wrong to murder."

[Winstonm]

Quote

You haven't made any progress with this suggestion. You now how to define what a positive consequence is. Are more humans better than less? Does human misery matter? Why does anything matter?

I was simply answering the question posed of: "What would these additional axioms be for you?"

This seemed to ask for personal axioms and thus the proposed axiom is personal and as such does not apply to defining positive consequences to anyone other than myself.

It seems rather obvious to me that most live by this axiom anyway, chosing to define positive consequences by their goals - be wealthy, be famous, be nice, be religious, etc.

For me the goal is: serenity.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Sep 29 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

It is the "attributing to" that causes the disconnection because the very nature of attributing anything other than totality is limiting.  Am I making any sense here to anyone other than myself?
God has told us of his attributes, although i doubt he's told us all of them (or if he has we fail to realize it)... so no, i don't think it's limiting to talk of those he's admitted to having, and i certainly don't think it's limiting when one acknowledges that all his attributes are omni

Quote

if morality isn't defined by God's attributes, then it is a matter of might makes right, correct?

Not in my understanding. The problem we have with this discourse is the differentiation of perspective - you continue to use the concepts of "right and wrong" and "moral", while I believe there is a natural law that is actions and consequences that has no judgemental properties to it.

In my perspective, Might is Might.
Right is the opposite of left.

i also believe there is a "law" of sowing and reaping, and i guess it could even be called a natural law, in that i believe it comes from God... what could be more natural? and i use "right and wrong" and "moral" because i thought those are what we were discussing... but if for you "right" is simply the opposite of left then we aren't speaking of the same thing

todd said:

Are more humans better than less? Does human misery matter? Why does anything matter? If you take the view that the universe is largely a machine that has always been and progresses from one state to the next largely deterministically but with some quantum mechanical randomness then I see no reason to believe that one state is superior to any other. Basically, without something transcendent, I see no reason to assign value to anything...the concept is meaningless.

exactly so

Quote

Ultimately, the path most people take (I think) goes down the road to an axiom like "goodness is that which maximizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." Under this axiom, if the net happiness of the earth were to increase as the result of the slaughter of some minority then that would be acceptable. People may agree to the axiom but not to its logical conclusion and want to start inserting caveats into the axiom but I don't see how to get to the axiom "it is wrong to murder."

and again

[DrTodd13]

Winstonm, on Sep 29 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

Quote

You haven't made any progress with this suggestion. You now how to define what a positive consequence is. Are more humans better than less? Does human misery matter? Why does anything matter?

I was simply answering the question posed of: "What would these additional axioms be for you?"

This seemed to ask for personal axioms and thus the proposed axiom is personal and as such does not apply to defining positive consequences to anyone other than myself.

It seems rather obvious to me that most live by this axiom anyway, chosing to define positive consequences by their goals - be wealthy, be famous, be nice, be religious, etc.

For me the goal is: serenity.

Well...ok...."I want things to be the best they can be" is certainly axiomatic material but you need further axioms that define what is good. Those are the axioms I was more interested in.

[mikeh]

The obvious problem with deferring to a higher, god, power is that except for the claims of the mentally ill or astoundingly arrogant, there is no evidence that any such higher power actually communicates with us

Any argument to the effect that such communication exists (eg...look around, all you see is the result of my god's beneficence..... or I am on personal speaking terms with my pet god (isn't such a claim the quintessence of arrogance, especially when couched, as if often seems to be, in terms of faux humility?) is based on reasoning from an unprovable axiom and so is as self-defeating as any other argument.

The bible, the koran, and other religious texts were physically written by humans, in the case of the bible, many humans. We have only the word of humans that what they wrote came from any god.. and since the followers of one religion generally reject at least some of what followers of other religions attribute to their own god or gods, occams razor suggests that they are all wrong

In any event, there have been a number of experiments suggesting that certain standards of morality are uniform across several cultures...


As for my starting points:

1. First, do no harm

2. Second, try to increase the happiness of those whose lives you can affect

Of course, I don't honour those axioms or maxims in my daily life to anything like the extent that maybe I should... but that seems to be the human norm. And I don't think it is even humanly possible to live up to these objectives, because of the complex interplay between the interests of ourselves, our family and friends, our community, our country.. if we are inclined to nationalism.. and our species.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Sep 30 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

The obvious problem with deferring to a higher, god, power is that except for the claims of the mentally ill or astoundingly arrogant, there is no evidence that any such higher power actually communicates with us

well i'm not astoundingly arrogant, though i may be mentally ill... in any case, you seem to be doing the same thing todd is talking about, arriving at conclusions based on internally inconsistent premises... you seem to be saying that because God hasn't spoken to you (in whatever form) or to anyone you know, he doesn't speak to anyone... you're logical enough to know that you can't argue that position and win, if that's what you're saying

Quote

Any argument to the effect that such communication exists (eg...look around, all you see is the result of my god's beneficence..... or I am on personal speaking terms with my pet god (isn't such a claim the quintessence of arrogance, especially when couched, as if often seems to be, in terms of faux humility?) is based on reasoning from an unprovable axiom and so is as self-defeating as any other argument.

as is your argument

Quote

In any event, there have been a number of experiments suggesting that certain standards of morality are uniform across several cultures...

As for my starting points:

1. First, do no harm

2. Second, try to increase the happiness of those whose lives you can affect

Of course, I don't honour those axioms or maxims in my daily life to anything like the extent that maybe I should... but that seems to be the human norm. And I don't think it is even humanly possible to live up to these objectives, because of the complex interplay between the interests of ourselves, our family and friends, our community, our country.. if we are inclined to nationalism.. and our species.

and as todd said above,

Quote

People may agree to the axiom but not to its logical conclusion and want to start inserting caveats into the axiom but I don't see how to get to the axiom "it is wrong to murder."

the point isn't that there are axioms, it's that they are subjective based on culture or environment or any number of other (all subjective) reasons... meaning, none have meaning - all are equally true or false... such is subjectivity

[nige1]

DrTodd13, on Sep 26 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

Is the following one of your accepted axioms "One should not do things that are wrong"?  If so, how do you define "wrong" such that it isn't circularly "those things one should not do."  One thing seems clear, that even if you accept this axiom, it cannot provide any tool with which to differentiate good and bad actions and therefore you need at least one more axiom to aide in this differentiation.  What would these additional axioms be for you? 

However, assume for a moment that I deny the validity of this axiom and that I rationally see no reason to accept it.  Could a person who claims to be rational then try to convince me otherwise?  Here's the Catch-22, how can a rational person try to get me to believe something for which (by definition) there is no proof?  One conclusion you could draw is that the most logical person in the world should believe absolutely nothing because all knowledge is ultimately based on axioms and as self-apparent as many of them appear, we really have no proof that they are true.

IMO, moral philosophy requires at least two axioms ...

• You should act to increase good (a modal axiom common to all ethical systems).
  
• G is good (Where G is specific to your beliefs. For example, for a Utilitarian, G may be "The greatest happiness of the greatest number". For most, there is more than one G.

Both appear to be unprovable hypotheses, Hence, before a rational person can get out of bed, he must adopt the equivalent of a religious belief.

A determinist may avoid this dilemma but it seems a hollow victory. The concept of free-will (another unprovable hypothesis) would be a painful sacrifice for many.

[hrothgar]

"Never Whistle While You're Pissing" : Not sure if it gets much simplier than this

[blackshoe]

An axiom is unprovable by definition, so I don't see the point in bringing that up.

Not sure how you're defining "religious belief", Nigel. I am pretty sure you're not defining it as I would.

[Impact]

hrothgar, on Dec 10 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

"Never Whistle While You're Pissing" : Not sure if it gets much simplier than this

I understood the classic to be

"Don't piss against the wind"....

regards

[jtfanclub]

1. Love Yourself.
2. Love thy neighbor as you love thyself.
3. Love God above all.
Those are the Christian Axioms. They can be molded to...

1. Look out for yourself.
2. Do that which is most helpful to both yourself and your neighbors.
3. Do not harm the world.
Which is a kind of set of Agnostic Axioms.

Quote

One conclusion you could draw is that the most logical person in the world should believe absolutely nothing because all knowledge is ultimately based on axioms and as self-apparent as many of them appear, we really have no proof that they are true.

First, you have to start with the axiom that you exist.
Then, you have to go with the axiom that the input you're receiving is true (you're not dreaming, there is no computer plugged directly into your brain to keep you from knowing about the Matrix, the Wicked Witch hasn't cast a spell on you to make you think you're in Kansas again).

But those are 'safe' axioms. If you don't exist, or your input is false, then who cares what axioms you take?