Author Topic: The stateless society, ownership and rights? Can they co-exist?  (Read 9467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
The greatest challenge of philosophy is the definition of a universal, objective and absolute morality that does not rely on God or the state.

I would argue that it is incredibly challenging because objective/universal/absolute morality does not exist. :)

Morals are subjective. They exist only in the minds of entities complex enough to contemplate them. The only objective morals we can refer to is the consensus moral code and values of a particular group of individuals or of an entire society. We can objectively say that these group of individuals (each with their slightly different morals) discussed it and came to the following compromise set of moral codes. We can codify that set and refer to it objectively, but it doesn't mean morality is objective. It is also almost certainly not universal, at least not necessarily. Of course we need to talk about which set of conscious entities we are considering when we are talking about something being universal. Let's talk about all human beings currently living on Earth. The probability that all human beings living on Earth would all hold the exact same set of subjective morals is incredibly small. However, there is probably some subset of those morals which nearly every human (but not necessarily all) holds personally.

This isn't to say that people couldn't objectively study morality as a field in philosophy. In fact, I would think of it more to do with the fields of social sciences, like psychology, and other sciences like biology, particularly neuroscience. It is an interesting challenge to understand how environment, life experiences, and biology shapes the subjective morality that develops in a human being. Even more interesting is to use that understanding to engineer changes in the environment to get desired changes in the moral views of human beings, particularly children growing up in that new environment. But I want to make it clear that I see the role of this field of study to make positive statements (what is that state of human morality and its dependence on various outside factors) and not normative statements (what should be the state of human morality). That scientific understanding could then be exploited to engineer morality (which deals with normative statements), but the decisions of what should be done is not determined because there is an objective answer but rather determined by the compromise consensus decided upon by the collection of human beings who have the means to actually implement those changes.


Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics – which does not mean that moral laws are false, subjective or irrelevant. The scientific method itself does not exist in reality either – and is also optional – but it is not at all false, subjective or irrelevant.

Morality is not false (I don't think it even makes sense to call it false) and certainly not irrelevant, but I do think it is subjective. The scientific method is also subjective. That doesn't mean it isn't useful though. Many of us (but not all!) agree that is the best method that humans have thought of for understanding the universe. But there is no objective moral law that says understanding the universe is good or should be done. Similarly, morality is useful (to each of us). And we certainly recognize that each of us hold certain values and moral codes and that they are incredibly important to us. But it does not mean that there is some objective morality that exists and that we have to try to discover and live our lives according to that moral code. We do however recognize that it would be easier to each live our lives and enjoy it if we shared a common moral code. And perhaps if we can come up with some meta-morals that the vast majority of people agree with that govern how we should come up with the specific morals that we can all share, then we can further develop that and use those meta-morals to reach the goal of a society that shares similar moral codes and is more pleasant to live within. But I think it is important to realize that there can be people who even disagree with those meta-morals or the very goal of trying to share common moral codes, and I consider that equally legitimate as the people who think we should follow the meta-morals. That, of course, doesn't stop me from ignoring them, disregarding their views, and moving on without them.


“Universally preferable behaviour” must be a valid concept, for five main reasons.

The first is logical: if I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely. Saying that there is no such thing as universally preferable behaviour is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist – it is innately self-contradictory. In other words, if there is no such thing as universally preferable behaviour, then one should oppose anyone who claims that there is such a thing as universally preferable behaviour. However, if one “should” do something, then one has just created universally preferable behaviour. Thus universally preferable behaviour – or moral rules – must be valid.

I believe "UPB exists" is false which means I might prefer to oppose people who claim "UPB exists". But there exists people who do not prefer to oppose people who claim "UPB exists" because they are simply apathetic about the issue (whether or not they actually believe "UPB exists" is a true statement). Therefore, the behavior 'arguing against people who claim "UPB exists" is true' or 'correcting those who speak falsely' or 'preferring truth over falsehood' are not universally preferred. There is no logical inconsistency. Ah, I see starspirit already addressed this point while I was writing this.

Anyway, that's it from me for now. I already spent too much time writing on this thread today.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 03:22:06 am by arhag »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I also love the depth of thinking and elegance of expression in this thread.  Wow.  We have a lot of smart people in this forum!

But I would love to see a high-quality, thoughtful sequel to The Matrix where all of the arguments made above are carried on by characters in white lab coats observing a computer generated universe from the inside and pontificating about how they are able to know everything there is to know by applying the Scientific Method. 


You need to think BIGGER, Pinky.  :)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
Nice contribution Myshadow. Here's my take on it...[your first post above]

Any scientific theory can be falsified by a single piece of contradictory evidence. Surely the fact that different people make moral choices that are different in the same given situations is enough evidence to prove that there is not a complete set of universal preferences of behaviour?

Is there even a single subset of behaviour that absolutely everyone can agree on as always holding? I guess this is what the author is trying to show via examples.

The excerpt discusses the preference for truth over falsity. But the scientific sample is only those who participate in the debate, arguing all such participants are clearly espousing truth over falsity. But this ignores the full sample of humanity, including those choosing to not have a view or to be silent from the debate. Nothing can be deduced of their preferences. Even if they all preferred some view of truth over falsity, this says nothing about their moral preferences (rules of interacting with others to elucidate or confer truth).

The excerpt also discusses the biological preference to breathe, eat and drink. But these are not forms of human interaction that say anything about moral preferences. The piece is trying to identify a base of universally preferred behaviours, when it should be focused on universally preferred modes of interaction, or morals. Universally preferred behaviours that have no moral implication are irrelevant.

The problem with this type of argument overall, is that there is not an irrefutable logic around these concepts that everybody will agree with. So though the author believes his case is strong enough to personally believe in objective morality, the subjectivity of the logic used means the case is left open for others. ie. It is only subjectively objective (or subjectively subjective).


Offline ticklebiscuit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Clearly both laws and blockchains are impotent for enforcing anything, because they're just communication.  If anything is to be enforced, either with a state or without it, it will be enforced by people who are willing to use force against others who don't comply.

Drones would do a good job too at enforcing i bet and they communicate with a blockchain will always have a database to communicate with!

Offline Myshadow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
The greatest challenge of philosophy is the definition of a universal, objective and absolute morality that does not rely on God or the state. The moment that we rely on God or the state for the definition of morality, morality no longer remains universal, objective and absolute. In other words, it is no longer “morality.”

The invention of imaginary entities such as “God” and “the state” does nothing to answer our questions about morality.

We fully understand that the invention of God did nothing – and does nothing – to answer questions about the origin of life, or the universe. To say, in answer to any question, “some incomprehensible being did some inconceivable thing in some unfathomable manner for unknowable purposes,” cannot be considered any sort of rational answer.

The gravest danger in making up incomprehensible “answers” to rational and essential questions is that it provides the illusion of an answer, which in general negates the pursuit of truth. Furthermore, a group inevitably coalesces to defend and profit from this irrational non-answer.

In the realm of religion, this is the priestly caste. In the realm of government, this is the political caste.

When a real and essential question is met with a mystical and violent “answer,” human progress turns to regression. The science of meteorology fails to come into being if the priests say that the rain comes because the gods will it. The science of medicine fails to develop if illness is considered a moral punishment from the gods. The science of physics stalls and regresses if the motion of the stars is considered the clockwork of the deities.

When false answers are presented to moral questions, questioning those answers inevitably becomes a moral crime. When illusions are substituted for curiosity, those who profit from those illusions inevitably end up using violence to defend their lies.

And for evermore, children are the first victims of these exploitive falsehoods.

Children do not have to be bullied into eating candy, playing tag, or understanding that two plus two is four. The human mind does not require that the truth be inflicted through terror, boredom, insults and repetition. A child does not have to be “taught” that a toy is real by telling him that he is damned to hell for eternity if he does not believe that the toy is real. A child does not have to be bullied into believing that chocolate tastes good by being told that his taste buds are damned by original sin.

Saying that morality exists because God tells us that it exists is exactly the same as saying that morality does not exist. If you buy an iPod from me on eBay, and I send you an empty box, you will write to me in outrage. If I tell you not to worry, that my invisible friend assures me that there is in fact an iPod in the box, would you be satisfied? Would not my claim that my invisible friend tells me of the iPod’s existence be a certain proof that the iPod did not in fact exist?

If morality is justified according to the authority of a being that does not exist, then morality by definition is not justified. If I write a check that is “certified” by a bank that does not exist, then clearly my check is by definition invalid.

The same is true for enforcing morality through the irrational monopoly of “the state.” If we allow the existence of a government – a minority of people who claim the right to initiate the use of force, a right which is specifically denied to everyone else – then any and all moral “rules” enforced by the government are purely subjective, since the government is by definition based on a violation of moral rules.

If I say that I need the government to protect my property, but that the government is by definition a group of people who can violate my property rights at will, then I am caught in an insurmountable contradiction. I am saying that my property rights must be defended – and then I create an agency to defend them that can violate them at any time. This is like being so afraid of rape that I hire a bodyguard to protect me from being raped – but in the contract, I allow my bodyguard – and anyone he chooses – to rape me at will.

Because “morality” based on the state and on religion is so irrational and self-contradictory, it requires a social agency with a monopoly on the initiation of force to function. Since everyone is just making up “morals” and claiming absolute justification based on imaginary entities, rational negotiation and understanding remain impossible. We do not need a government because people are bad, but rather, because people are irrational, we end up with a government. False moral theories always end up requiring violence to enforce them. Moral theories are not developed in response to violence – false moral theories cause violence – in fact, demand violence.

The moral subjectivism and irrationality involved in answering “What is truth?” with “God,” and “What is morality?” with “government,” is so openly revealed by the framework of UPB that it is hard to imagine that this concept is not more widespread.

One central reason for this is that truly understanding UPB requires the very highest possible mental functioning. It is relatively easy to be rational; it is very difficult to think about the implicit premises of rationality, and all that they entail. It is relatively easy to debate; it is very difficult to tease out all of the implicit assumptions involved in the very act of debating.

It is easy to catch a ball – it is hard to invent the physics that explain motion universally.

Thinking about thinking is the hardest mental discipline of all.

At the beginning of this book, I talked about a “beast” that terrified and enslaved mankind. This beast is always located on a mountaintop, or in a deep cave. People are afraid of the beast in the world, which is why the beast has never been defeated.

The beast has never been defeated because the beast is an illusion.

The beast cannot be defeated in the world, because the beast is within ourselves.

The collective fantasy that there exists a “null zone,” where morality magically reverses itself, called “the government” is exactly the same as the collective fantasy that there exists a “null zone” called “God” where reality reverses itself.

If we define “morality” according to the subjective fantasies of mere mortals, then it will forever remain under the manipulative control of power-hungry tyrants. Since God does not exist, anyone who speaks about morality in relation to God is just making up definitions to serve his own purposes.

Since “the state” does not exist, anyone who speaks about morality in relation to government is just making up definitions to serve his own purposes.

Until we can define an objective and rational morality that is free from the subjective whims of each individual, we will never make the kind of progress that we need to as a species.

Morality, like physics, biology, geology and chemistry, must join the realm of the sciences if we are to flourish – and indeed, perhaps, to survive at all.

However, if we can sustain our courage, it is this discipline alone that can set us, and our children – and all humanity in the future – free from the tyranny of the greatest beast: our own moral illusions.

Offline Myshadow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
I love that this forum has discussions like this and the discussions remain discussions that I am able to learn from and enjoy. I'm just going to leave this excerpt from https://board.freedomainradio.com/page/books/universally_preferable_behavior_a_rational_proof_of_secular_ethics.html regarding morality here. :)

The closest historical analogy to our present situation occurred in the 15th and 16th centuries, during the rise of the scientific method. The early pioneers who advocated a rational and empirical approach to knowledge faced the same prejudices that we face today – all the same irrationalities, entrenched powers of church and state, mystical and subjective “absolutes” and early educational barriers. Those who advocated the primacy of rationality and empirical observation over Biblical fundamentalism and secular tyrannies faced the determined opposition of those wielding both cross and sword. Many were tortured to death for their intellectual honesty – we face far less risk, and so should be far more courageous in advocating what is true over what is believed.

In order to attack false moralities, we must start from the beginning, just as the first scientists did. Francis Bacon did not argue that the scientific method was more “efficient” than prayer, Bible texts or starvation-induced visions. He simply said that if we want to understand nature, we must observe nature and theorize logically – and that there is no other route to knowledge.

We must take the same approach in defining and communicating morality. We must begin using the power and legitimacy of the scientific method to prove the validity and universality of moral laws. We must start from the beginning, build logically and reject any irrational or non-empirical substitutes for the truth.

What does this look like in practice? All we have to do is establish the following axioms:

Morality is a valid concept.
Moral rules must be consistent for all mankind.
The validity of a moral theory is judged by its consistency.

To start from the very beginning… are moral rules – or universally preferable human behaviours – valid at all?

There are only two possibilities when it comes to moral rules, just as there are in any logical science. Either universal moral rules are valid, or they are not. (In physics, the question is: either universal physical rules are valid, or they are not.)

A rule can be valid if it exists empirically, like gravity, or because it is true, like the equation 2+2=4.

We must then first ask: do moral rules exist at all?

Certainly not in material reality, which does not contain or obey a single moral rule. Moral rules are different from the rules of physics, just as the scientific method is different from gravity. Matter innately obeys gravity or the second law of thermodynamics, but “thou shalt not murder” is nowhere inscribed in the nature of things. Physical laws describe the behaviour of matter, but do not contain a single prescription. Science says that matter does behave in a certain manner – never that it should behave in a certain manner. A theory of gravity proves that if you push a man off a cliff, he will fall. It will not tell you whether you should push him or not.

Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics – which does not mean that moral laws are false, subjective or irrelevant. The scientific method itself does not exist in reality either – and is also optional – but it is not at all false, subjective or irrelevant.

If we can prove that moral theories can be objective, rational and verifiable, this will provide the same benefits to ethics that subjecting physical theories to the scientific method did.

Before the rise of the scientific method, people believed that matter obeyed the subjective whims of gods and devils – and people believe the same of morality now. Volcanoes erupted because the mountain-god was angry; good harvests resulted from human or animal sacrifices. No one believed that absolute physical laws could limit the will of the gods – and so science could never develop. Those who historically profited from defining physical reality as subjective – mostly priests and aristocrats – fought the subjugation of physical theories to the scientific method, just as those who currently profit from defining morality as subjective – mostly priests and politicians – currently fight the subjugation of moral theories to objective and universal principles.

As mentioned above, the scientific method is essentially a methodology for separating accurate from inaccurate theories by subjecting them to two central tests: logical consistency and empirical observation – and by always subjugating logical consistency to empirical observation. If I propose a perfectly consistent and logical theory that says that a rock will float up when thrown off a cliff, any empirical test proves my theory incorrect, since observation always trumps hypothesis.

A further aspect of the scientific method is the belief that, since matter is composed of combinations of atoms with common, stable and predictable properties, the behaviour of matter must also be common, stable and predictable. Thus experiments must be reproducible in different locations and times. I cannot say that my “rock floating” theory is correct for just one particular rock, or on the day I first tested it, or at a single location. My theories must describe the behaviour of matter, which is universal, common, stable and predictable.

Finally, there is a generally accepted rule – sometimes called Occam’s Razor – which states that, of any two theories that have the same predictive power, the simpler of the two is preferable. Prior to the Copernican revolution, when Earth was considered the centre of the universe, the retrograde motion of Mars when Earth passed it in orbit around the sun caused enormous problems to the Ptolemaic system of astronomical calculations. “Circles within circles” multiplied enormously, which were all cleared away by simply placing the sun at the centre of the solar system and accepting the elliptical nature of planetary orbits.

Thus any valid scientific theory must be (a) universal, (b) logical, (c) empirically verifiable, (d) reproducible and (e) as simple as possible.

The methodology for judging and proving a moral theory is exactly the same as the methodology for judging and proving any other theory.

Moral Rules: A Definition
The first question regarding moral rules is: what are they?

Simply put, morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify universally preferable human behaviours, just as physics is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the universal behaviour of matter.

The second question to be asked is: is there any such thing as “universally preferable behaviour” at all? If there is, we can begin to explore what such behaviour might be. If not, then our examination must stop here – just as the examination of Ptolemaic astronomy ceased after it became commonly accepted that the Sun was in fact the centre of the solar system.

As we discussed above, the proposition that there is no such thing as preferable behaviour contains an insurmountable number of logical and empirical problems. “Universally preferable behaviour” must be a valid concept, for five main reasons.

The first is logical: if I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is valid, I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely. Saying that there is no such thing as universally preferable behaviour is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist – it is innately self-contradictory. In other words, if there is no such thing as universally preferable behaviour, then one should oppose anyone who claims that there is such a thing as universally preferable behaviour. However, if one “should” do something, then one has just created universally preferable behaviour. Thus universally preferable behaviour – or moral rules – must be valid.

Syllogistically, this is:

The proposition is: the concept “universally preferable behaviour” must be valid.

Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally preferable behaviour.

Therefore no argument against the validity of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.

We all know that there are subjective preferences, such as liking ice cream or jazz, which are not considered binding upon other people. On the other hand, there are other preferences, such as rape and murder, which clearly are inflicted on others. There are also preferences for logic, truth and evidence, which are also binding upon others (although they are not usually violently inflicted) insofar as we all accept that an illogical proposition must be false or invalid.

Those preferences which can be considered binding upon others can be termed “universal preferences,” or “moral rules.”

How else can we know that the concept of “moral rules” is valid?

We can examine the question biologically as well as syllogistically.

For instance, all matter is subject to physical rules – and everything that lives is in addition subject to certain requirements, and thus, if it is alive, must have followed universally preferred behaviours. Life, for instance, requires fuel and oxygen. Any living mind, of course, is an organic part of the physical world, and so is subject to physical laws and must have followed universally preferred behaviours – to argue otherwise would require proof that consciousness is not composed of matter, and is not organic – an impossibility, since it has mass, energy, and life. Arguing that consciousness is subject to neither physical rules nor universally preferred behaviours would be like arguing that human beings are immune to gravity, and can flourish without eating.

Thus it is impossible that anyone can logically argue against universally preferable behaviour, since if he is alive to argue, he must have followed universally preferred behaviours such as breathing, eating and drinking.

Syllogistically, this is:

All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.

Man is a living organism.

Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.

Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behaviour.

Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behaviour can be valid.

Since the scientific method requires empirical corroboration, we must also look to reality to confirm our hypothesis – and here the validity of universally preferable behaviour is fully supported.

Every sane human being believes in moral rules of some kind. There is some disagreement about what constitutes moral rules, but everyone is certain that moral rules are valid – just as many scientists disagree, but all scientists accept the validity of the scientific method itself. One can argue that the Earth is round and not flat – which is analogous to changing the definition of morality – but one cannot argue that the Earth does not exist at all – which is like arguing that there is no such thing as universally preferable behaviour.


Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit

Thanks Pascal.  :P  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager


Never underestimate the tremendous cost of denying yourself the ability to live life according to your own principles, values and beliefs, driven by fear that you will disappoint any of an unlimited range of beings that humans could conceive of, any of which could make our lives heaven or hell on the back of a prescribed code of behaviour.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
With acknowledgement to Donald Rumsfeld...

Views that hold that unobservable things objectively exist are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are things that are objectively objective; there are things we can verify and agree upon as objectively existing. We also know there are things that are objectively subjective; that is to say we know and agree there are some things that only have subjective existence according to the views of individuals. But there are also things that are subjectively objective -- the ones we disagree on and have no way of verifying whether objective existence actually exists. And if one looks through the history of our forum and other free debates, it is the latter category that tend to be the greatest conundrums.

In the latter category, we might include objective morality, inalienable rights, objective reality, objective truth, god(s), determinism, an ultimate model of the universe, etc etc.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 12:19:20 am by starspirit »

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.

You can't discover or prove things which are not observable.
If there are such things, you can only know them if they are taught to you by someone you find credible.
There are many who claim to have been eye-witnesses to such teaching.
Like any juror, you have to decide whether you find such eye-witnesses credible.

I have never seen a strange quark.
I have no capability to observe one.
I have to decide whether the group of physicists who say they have observed them are credible.   :)

The scientists who claimed to have observed a strange quark do not merely state their claim. They also provide a procedure that anyone with sufficient resources could recreate in the present to repeat the observation for themselves. Their claims are falsifiable. This means that they are putting their reputation on the line if the make false claims. Other scientists are waiting to repeat their observations to check their work. The more the original set of scientists' claim is accepted by society, the more significant it would be for the second set of scientists to disprove the claim. Checking each other's claims is possible and the incentives for checking the claims are in place. The rest of us can rely on this mechanism to trust falsifiable claims that have been verified by many independent groups and have not yet been disproven even though we won't be making the observations and calculations ourselves. It would take a very elaborate and difficult to maintain conspiracy for a large set of scientists to intentionally propagate the belief in false scientific claims (assuming they would even have any personal motivation to do so in the first place).

Let's compare the above to alleged eye-witness claims of divine teachings and phenomena. We are forced to base the belief off books which are translations of other books written many years ago of stories that were passed down verbally which originated 1000s of years ago allegedly from eye-witness evidence. There are many places along this process where the information could be corrupted (think of the game of telephone). The most significant of which is the original observation of the "evidence" by potentially flawed observers as well as the original reporting of the observation to other people. And we have no way of proving whether these observations were accurate or not because we cannot go back in time to observe it (and even if we somehow could we would need a sufficiently decentralized and unlikely to collude group of individuals to all go back and observe it so that they could corroborate on their story).

Furthermore, there can be many reasons why the reporters of this evidence would have incentive to lie about their claims. They may wish to obtain fame and power (claiming you are special enough to be a prophet that God decided to directly present and speak to could be a good way of achieving that, although it can also backfire and provide notoriety instead and result in one's death for blasphemy and heresy). They may wish to control populations through religion (claiming certain rules you want populations to follow have authority not because you say they do but because a higher power than you does gives it more credibility to significant portions of the population). Also, keep in mind that the eye-witness observers may also not be intentially lying but rather subconciously exaggerating their claims and seeing what they want to see (we know the human mind tends to do that). Since a belief in supernatural phenemona has been deeply buried in the human subconcious for a long time (our pattern seeking brains tend to observe natural phenomena that we cannot explain scientifically through all kinds of imaginative stories), it is not odd to think that the observers of "novel" divine "evidence", which was in reality nothing special or significant, saw something there that confirmed their expectations of what they hoped to see (think Virgin Mary on a piece of toast).

Given the above realities of the human condition, we should be skeptical of these claims. We should be skeptical of radical scientific claims as well, of course. But the scientific claims are falsifiable. Furthermore, people don't really take new theories very seriously if they are not going beyond the currently accepted theory in some way. If the new theory explains all evidence that is already explained by the current dominant theory, and nothing more, then it is not interesting. If there is evidence that seems to contradict the current theory but a new theory explains it as well as all the other evidence explained by the current theory, then it is interesting enough to scrutinize. If the novel predictions the new theory makes are then later confirmed, it then stands a very good chance of replacing the current theory. You can see many examples of this in science but just to give one example, look at Einstein's general relativity replacing Newtonian gravity. While the process is not perfect and wonderfully rational always, it at least continually improves upon itself based on evidence observed in the physical universe and through the scientific method.

I think the same processes should be applied to divine claims. There is no reason to consider a new theory of how the universe operates unless there is evidence that doesn't fit the current theory and the new theory explains it (or explains it much better). But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim of divine powers existing in the universe that had never been observed is an extraordinary claim. It is not sufficient in my opinion to consider the testimony of a single person (or even a small group of people) who claimed to have had a first-hand experience of the phenomena as "extraordinary evidence" (especially for all the reasons I stated two paragraphs above). It is certain that our current theory of the universe is incorrect (even if only slightly) and it may even be possible that the correct theory includes a subset of divine phenomena as reported in religious scripture, but it makes no sense to jump to that theory based on the faulty evidence we have supporting this new theory as of today. If extraordinary evidence did present itself in the future, and we were to skeptically and scientifically study this evidence using critical reasoning, then the theory should (and very likely would) change. So far, it has not.

But I want to go a bit further. Even if we found the evidence of divine phenomena reported in religious scripture to be compelling (of course we have to ask which of the many conflicting religious scripture we are talking about in this case), I would argue that it is not sufficient evidence of an afterlife, dualism, or objective morality. A being with abilities that were, up to the point of us observing them, considered supernatural (if we reach a  consensus that they actually exist in the natural physical world, it is no longer accurate to call it "supernatural"), is not necessarily also a being that is omnipotent and is the creator of the entire universe. Humans with our current technology would look like magical wizards compared to humans a few thousand years back in the past. It could be plausible that extraterrestrial beings with their advanced technology (potentially exploiting laws of physics we were unaware of) could exhibit actions that most of us humans would be unable to interpret as any other way than "divine". And just because such an advanced being might claim they are the omnipotent creator of the universe, that there exists a human soul that will after biological death either experience eternal paradise or eternal torture based on the judgement of the omnipotent being, and also here are the list of criteria by which the being will be judging humanity, doesn't necessarily make any of it true. It could just be a prank or a means of claiming higher superiority than they already have to further quell any resistance to their claims of control and power.

Yep, you should consider all of those things when determining whether any unfalsifiable teaching is credible.

But the burden of proof that there are no bears in the woods lies with the person who wants to go there unarmed.

:)

Thanks Pascal.  :P  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

I prefer to take that logic a bit further back.  We must assume (if possible) that we have real, non-illusory free will, because choosing not to make that assumption is absurd.  Likewise, we must assume that objective value exists, and that our decisions can have objective value, because this is either true, or by definition no value can be lost by choosing to believe it falsely.

Having established that objective value exists, I take the consequentialist approach to morality, though accepting the existence of objective value leaves plenty of room for debate regarding its exact nature and what actions may create it or destroy it.  Depending on the standards of value incorporated, I think a consequentialist framework can encompass any other moral system.

I am Christian, but I believe that God is "good" not simply by arbitrarily defining the term as a self reference, but because what God is as an entity is defined by the creation of real value.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.

You can't discover or prove things which are not observable.
If there are such things, you can only know them if they are taught to you by someone you find credible.
There are many who claim to have been eye-witnesses to such teaching.
Like any juror, you have to decide whether you find such eye-witnesses credible.

I have never seen a strange quark.
I have no capability to observe one.
I have to decide whether the group of physicists who say they have observed them are credible.   :)

The scientists who claimed to have observed a strange quark do not merely state their claim. They also provide a procedure that anyone with sufficient resources could recreate in the present to repeat the observation for themselves. Their claims are falsifiable. This means that they are putting their reputation on the line if the make false claims. Other scientists are waiting to repeat their observations to check their work. The more the original set of scientists' claim is accepted by society, the more significant it would be for the second set of scientists to disprove the claim. Checking each other's claims is possible and the incentives for checking the claims are in place. The rest of us can rely on this mechanism to trust falsifiable claims that have been verified by many independent groups and have not yet been disproven even though we won't be making the observations and calculations ourselves. It would take a very elaborate and difficult to maintain conspiracy for a large set of scientists to intentionally propagate the belief in false scientific claims (assuming they would even have any personal motivation to do so in the first place).

Let's compare the above to alleged eye-witness claims of divine teachings and phenomena. We are forced to base the belief off books which are translations of other books written many years ago of stories that were passed down verbally which originated 1000s of years ago allegedly from eye-witness evidence. There are many places along this process where the information could be corrupted (think of the game of telephone). The most significant of which is the original observation of the "evidence" by potentially flawed observers as well as the original reporting of the observation to other people. And we have no way of proving whether these observations were accurate or not because we cannot go back in time to observe it (and even if we somehow could we would need a sufficiently decentralized and unlikely to collude group of individuals to all go back and observe it so that they could corroborate on their story).

Furthermore, there can be many reasons why the reporters of this evidence would have incentive to lie about their claims. They may wish to obtain fame and power (claiming you are special enough to be a prophet that God decided to directly present and speak to could be a good way of achieving that, although it can also backfire and provide notoriety instead and result in one's death for blasphemy and heresy). They may wish to control populations through religion (claiming certain rules you want populations to follow have authority not because you say they do but because a higher power than you does gives it more credibility to significant portions of the population). Also, keep in mind that the eye-witness observers may also not be intentially lying but rather subconciously exaggerating their claims and seeing what they want to see (we know the human mind tends to do that). Since a belief in supernatural phenemona has been deeply buried in the human subconcious for a long time (our pattern seeking brains tend to observe natural phenomena that we cannot explain scientifically through all kinds of imaginative stories), it is not odd to think that the observers of "novel" divine "evidence", which was in reality nothing special or significant, saw something there that confirmed their expectations of what they hoped to see (think Virgin Mary on a piece of toast).

Given the above realities of the human condition, we should be skeptical of these claims. We should be skeptical of radical scientific claims as well, of course. But the scientific claims are falsifiable. Furthermore, people don't really take new theories very seriously if they are not going beyond the currently accepted theory in some way. If the new theory explains all evidence that is already explained by the current dominant theory, and nothing more, then it is not interesting. If there is evidence that seems to contradict the current theory but a new theory explains it as well as all the other evidence explained by the current theory, then it is interesting enough to scrutinize. If the novel predictions the new theory makes are then later confirmed, it then stands a very good chance of replacing the current theory. You can see many examples of this in science but just to give one example, look at Einstein's general relativity replacing Newtonian gravity. While the process is not perfect and wonderfully rational always, it at least continually improves upon itself based on evidence observed in the physical universe and through the scientific method.

I think the same processes should be applied to divine claims. There is no reason to consider a new theory of how the universe operates unless there is evidence that doesn't fit the current theory and the new theory explains it (or explains it much better). But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim of divine powers existing in the universe that had never been observed is an extraordinary claim. It is not sufficient in my opinion to consider the testimony of a single person (or even a small group of people) who claimed to have had a first-hand experience of the phenomena as "extraordinary evidence" (especially for all the reasons I stated two paragraphs above). It is certain that our current theory of the universe is incorrect (even if only slightly) and it may even be possible that the correct theory includes a subset of divine phenomena as reported in religious scripture, but it makes no sense to jump to that theory based on the faulty evidence we have supporting this new theory as of today. If extraordinary evidence did present itself in the future, and we were to skeptically and scientifically study this evidence using critical reasoning, then the theory should (and very likely would) change. So far, it has not.

But I want to go a bit further. Even if we found the evidence of divine phenomena reported in religious scripture to be compelling (of course we have to ask which of the many conflicting religious scripture we are talking about in this case), I would argue that it is not sufficient evidence of an afterlife, dualism, or objective morality. A being with abilities that were, up to the point of us observing them, considered supernatural (if we reach a  consensus that they actually exist in the natural physical world, it is no longer accurate to call it "supernatural"), is not necessarily also a being that is omnipotent and is the creator of the entire universe. Humans with our current technology would look like magical wizards compared to humans a few thousand years back in the past. It could be plausible that extraterrestrial beings with their advanced technology (potentially exploiting laws of physics we were unaware of) could exhibit actions that most of us humans would be unable to interpret as any other way than "divine". And just because such an advanced being might claim they are the omnipotent creator of the universe, that there exists a human soul that will after biological death either experience eternal paradise or eternal torture based on the judgement of the omnipotent being, and also here are the list of criteria by which the being will be judging humanity, doesn't necessarily make any of it true. It could just be a prank or a means of claiming higher superiority than they already have to further quell any resistance to their claims of control and power.

Yep, you should consider all of those things when determining whether any unfalsifiable teaching is credible.

But the burden of proof that there are no bears in the woods lies with the person who wants to go there unarmed.

:)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.

You can't discover or prove things which are not observable.
If there are such things, you can only know them if they are taught to you by someone you find credible.
There are many who claim to have been eye-witnesses to such teaching.
Like any juror, you have to decide whether you find such eye-witnesses credible.

I have never seen a strange quark.
I have no capability to observe one.
I have to decide whether the group of physicists who say they have observed them are credible.   :)

The scientists who claimed to have observed a strange quark do not merely state their claim. They also provide a procedure that anyone with sufficient resources could recreate in the present to repeat the observation for themselves. Their claims are falsifiable. This means that they are putting their reputation on the line if the make false claims. Other scientists are waiting to repeat their observations to check their work. The more the original set of scientists' claim is accepted by society, the more significant it would be for the second set of scientists to disprove the claim. Checking each other's claims is possible and the incentives for checking the claims are in place. The rest of us can rely on this mechanism to trust falsifiable claims that have been verified by many independent groups and have not yet been disproven even though we won't be making the observations and calculations ourselves. It would take a very elaborate and difficult to maintain conspiracy for a large set of scientists to intentionally propagate the belief in false scientific claims (assuming they would even have any personal motivation to do so in the first place).

Let's compare the above to alleged eye-witness claims of divine teachings and phenomena. We are forced to base the belief off books which are translations of other books written many years ago of stories that were passed down verbally which originated 1000s of years ago allegedly from eye-witness evidence. There are many places along this process where the information could be corrupted (think of the game of telephone). The most significant of which is the original observation of the "evidence" by potentially flawed observers as well as the original reporting of the observation to other people. And we have no way of proving whether these observations were accurate or not because we cannot go back in time to observe it (and even if we somehow could we would need a sufficiently decentralized and unlikely to collude group of individuals to all go back and observe it so that they could corroborate on their story).

Furthermore, there can be many reasons why the reporters of this evidence would have incentive to lie about their claims. They may wish to obtain fame and power (claiming you are special enough to be a prophet that God decided to directly present and speak to could be a good way of achieving that, although it can also backfire and provide notoriety instead and result in one's death for blasphemy and heresy). They may wish to control populations through religion (claiming certain rules you want populations to follow have authority not because you say they do but because a higher power than you does gives it more credibility to significant portions of the population). Also, keep in mind that the eye-witness observers may also not be intentially lying but rather subconciously exaggerating their claims and seeing what they want to see (we know the human mind tends to do that). Since a belief in supernatural phenemona has been deeply buried in the human subconcious for a long time (our pattern seeking brains tend to observe natural phenomena that we cannot explain scientifically through all kinds of imaginative stories), it is not odd to think that the observers of "novel" divine "evidence", which was in reality nothing special or significant, saw something there that confirmed their expectations of what they hoped to see (think Virgin Mary on a piece of toast).

Given the above realities of the human condition, we should be skeptical of these claims. We should be skeptical of radical scientific claims as well, of course. But the scientific claims are falsifiable. Furthermore, people don't really take new theories very seriously if they are not going beyond the currently accepted theory in some way. If the new theory explains all evidence that is already explained by the current dominant theory, and nothing more, then it is not interesting. If there is evidence that seems to contradict the current theory but a new theory explains it as well as all the other evidence explained by the current theory, then it is interesting enough to scrutinize. If the novel predictions the new theory makes are then later confirmed, it then stands a very good chance of replacing the current theory. You can see many examples of this in science but just to give one example, look at Einstein's general relativity replacing Newtonian gravity. While the process is not perfect and wonderfully rational always, it at least continually improves upon itself based on evidence observed in the physical universe and through the scientific method.

I think the same processes should be applied to divine claims. There is no reason to consider a new theory of how the universe operates unless there is evidence that doesn't fit the current theory and the new theory explains it (or explains it much better). But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim of divine powers existing in the universe that had never been observed is an extraordinary claim. It is not sufficient in my opinion to consider the testimony of a single person (or even a small group of people) who claimed to have had a first-hand experience of the phenomena as "extraordinary evidence" (especially for all the reasons I stated two paragraphs above). It is certain that our current theory of the universe is incorrect (even if only slightly) and it may even be possible that the correct theory includes a subset of divine phenomena as reported in religious scripture, but it makes no sense to jump to that theory based on the faulty evidence we have supporting this new theory as of today. If extraordinary evidence did present itself in the future, and we were to skeptically and scientifically study this evidence using critical reasoning, then the theory should (and very likely would) change. So far, it has not.

But I want to go a bit further. Even if we found the evidence of divine phenomena reported in religious scripture to be compelling (of course we have to ask which of the many conflicting religious scripture we are talking about in this case), I would argue that it is not sufficient evidence of an afterlife, dualism, or objective morality. A being with abilities that were, up to the point of us observing them, considered supernatural (if we reach a  consensus that they actually exist in the natural physical world, it is no longer accurate to call it "supernatural"), is not necessarily also a being that is omnipotent and is the creator of the entire universe. Humans with our current technology would look like magical wizards compared to humans a few thousand years back in the past. It could be plausible that extraterrestrial beings with their advanced technology (potentially exploiting laws of physics we were unaware of) could exhibit actions that most of us humans would be unable to interpret as any other way than "divine". And just because such an advanced being might claim they are the omnipotent creator of the universe, that there exists a human soul that will after biological death either experience eternal paradise or eternal torture based on the judgement of the omnipotent being, and also here are the list of criteria by which the being will be judging humanity, doesn't necessarily make any of it true. It could just be a prank or a means of claiming higher superiority than they already have to further quell any resistance to their claims of control and power.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.

You can't discover or prove things which are not observable.
If there are such things, you can only know them if they are taught to you by someone you find credible.
There are many who claim to have been eye-witnesses to such teaching.
Like any juror, you have to decide whether you find such eye-witnesses credible.

I have never seen a strange quark.
I have no capability to observe one.
I have to decide whether the group of physicists who say they have observed them are credible.   :)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline starspirit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 948
  • Financial markets pro over 20 years
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: starspirit
These are fantastic questions arhag. I also think whatever the individual answers are, beyond the simple statements like "not harming others", there is a world of conflicts and compromises once people start debating the nuances. I find hypothetical situations useful to elucidate these, and I've given some past examples.

Irrespective of one's stance on the existence of objective moral truths and rights, the point of the OP is that the block-chain cannot protect whatever ownership rights it is that one believes they have. The block-chain is silent on whether the distribution of property control is consistent with those moral ownership rights, nor does it provide a practical mechanism to enforce it. This means that other (outside-blockchain) mechanisms are required to satisfy property rights.
(Unless one takes a post-blockchain neo-view that control is sufficient to grant the ownership right...)
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 07:00:47 am by starspirit »

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
Morality is only subjective if there is no rather opinionated Creator who says otherwise.  :)

Great, time to bring up the five questions I asked bytemaster back in October:

  • Do you believe that objective morality exists?
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then who/what determines these objective morals and how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity?
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then do you believe that "respecting property rights" and "not harming others" belong in the aforementioned set of objective morals?
  • How do you define property and property rights? What is and is not considered property? What rights do they give to the owners? How are the owners even determined? What does it mean to not harm others? Is this physical harm, emotional harm, or both? Who even gets to determine whether harm occurred or whether it was "sufficient" harm? (I realize these are actually way more than one question)
  • If the answer to the first question is yes, then are your answers to the previous question, which describe what "property rights" and "harm" should be, also defined objectively along with the set of objective morals? If not, through which mechanisms do you believe human societies should come to a consensus on the answers to those questions?

You already answered yes to the first question. I'm particularly most interested in your answer to the second question more than any other, in particular the "how are humans supposed to discover them and prove their veracity" part.


P.S. I find it really annoying that the SMF software doesn't allow me to quote a post in a locked thread.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Define "rights". Regardless of your definition of rights someone else may have another definition that conflicts with yours. Perhaps your definition of rights gives you moral authority (authority that is only recognized by yourself and other people who share your philosophy of course) to disregard other's definitions. The statement that "rights" are "inalienable" and "endowed by their Creator" seems to suggest that you believe in rights (and furthermore morality) as objective things, meaning things that exist in the physical (or metaphysical?) universe outside of any conscious entity's mind, rather than as abstract constructs in the minds of human beings. I think of morality as purely a subjective thing.


(Rats, I hit modify instead of quote and screwed up this post.)

Natural rights such as to secure life, liberty, and property as John Locke defined them.

Morality is only subjective if there is no rather opinionated Creator who says otherwise.  :)
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.