The stateless society, ownership and rights? Can they co-exist?

[Myshadow]

The essential problem with this is the same problem with attempting to empirically demonstrate economic principles - the sample is only historic, and is influenced by so many other factors you would never be able to tease them apart. That's why Austrian economics is built on a foundation of presumably axiomatic principles and not on empirical testing.

Are the requirements for Economics that much different? Would we be Austrians if the fall of the Roman empire could be clearly demonstrated to be linked to a lack of debasement of their currency?

Of course not! Both internal consistency of principle as well as supporting evidence are required for any given hypothesis to be accepted as accurate by rational individuals. This is why an internally consistent principle is required to validate actions as moral or immoral as well as the evidence supporting it.

[starspirit]

I have to admit that I haven't actually read Pinker, I have only read some reviews about his positions. 

I believe in the general idea that we can empirically determine some moral guildlines, applicable to a society of humans.  For example, I think we can empirically demonstrate that Slavery is evil. 

But I definitely wouldnt say this is an easy problem, its clearly very hard.

I Agree, I'd go further and say that we can empirically demonstrate that the Initiation of Force is Evil.

If we can empirically demonstrate that, then we already have the objectively validated framework that we need to build society on, its hard to get your head around, but incredibly simple at the same time.

The essential problem with this is the same problem with attempting to empirically demonstrate economic principles - the sample is only historic, and is influenced by so many other factors you would never be able to tease them apart. That's why Austrian economics is built on a foundation of presumably axiomatic principles and not on empirical testing.

[Myshadow]

I Agree, I'd go further and say that we can empirically demonstrate that the Initiation of Force is Evil.

If we can empirically demonstrate that, then we already have the objectively validated framework that we need to build society on, its hard to get your head around, but incredibly simple at the same time.

[Ander]

I have to admit that I haven't actually read Pinker, I have only read some reviews about his positions. 

I believe in the general idea that we can empirically determine some moral guildlines, applicable to a society of humans.  For example, I think we can empirically demonstrate that Slavery is evil. 

But I definitely wouldnt say this is an easy problem, its clearly very hard.

[Myshadow]

Awesome post Ander, You explained far better than I could what I was trying to get at

I am not a fan of Pinker though, his statistics are cherry picked and only include first world countries after world war 2 so his conclusion that a larger government means less violence is woefully inaccurate to say the least. The review below sums it up quite well.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/john-gray-steven-pinker-violence-review

A sceptical reader might wonder whether the outbreak of peace in developed countries and endemic conflict in less fortunate lands might not be somehow connected. Was the immense violence that ravaged southeast Asia after 1945 a result of immemorial backwardness in the region? Or was a subtle and refined civilization wrecked by world war and the aftermath of decades of neo-colonial conflict—as Norman Lewis intimated would happen in his prophetic account of his travels in the region, A Dragon Apparent (1951)? It is true that the second world war was followed by over 40 years of peace in North America and Europe—even if for the eastern half of the continent it was a peace that rested on Soviet conquest. But there was no peace between the powers that had emerged as rivals from the global conflict.

In much the same way that rich societies exported their pollution to developing countries, the societies of the highly-developed world exported their conflicts. They were at war with one another the entire time—not only in Indo-China but in other parts of Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The Korean war, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, British counter-insurgency warfare in Malaya and Kenya, the abortive Franco-British invasion of Suez, the Angolan civil war, decades of civil war in the Congo and Guatemala, the Six Day War, the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet-Afghan war—these are only some of the armed conflicts through which the great powers pursued their rivalries while avoiding direct war with each other. When the end of the Cold War removed the Soviet Union from the scene, war did not end. It continued in the first Gulf war, the Balkan wars, Chechnya, the Iraq war and in Afghanistan and Kashmir, among other conflicts. Taken together these conflicts add up to a formidable sum of violence. For Pinker they are minor, peripheral and hardly worth mentioning. The real story, for him, is the outbreak of peace in advanced societies, a shift that augurs an unprecedented transformation in human affairs.

[Troglodactyl]

...
I doubt anyone has actually made it to the end of my ramblings, but if you have, wow, you probably think I'm nuts.  Or maybe not. 

I also made it to the end, and not only do I not think you're nuts, but what you're saying does not conflict with my map of reality.

To "knowing with a high probability" I would also add "knowing by safe assumption."  When building a map, I can assume that I'm not a brain in a jar fed by a demon, because choosing that as a map is a dead end.  It makes no sense to build a map that implies that maps are useless.

[Ander]

Although, I think we may disagree on our definition of the word "morality" (or maybe we are just overloading the word with multiple definitions which can lead to confusion). Also, how do you define "collective benefit".

Yes, words are confusing.  And this is a very hard topic to analyze, for sure.

I would say that some form of preference based utilitarianism could be used to measure collective good of the sentient beings, which you would then want to maximize.  You would also want to ensure some fairness level, so you arent completely screwing over some of the sentient beings for more utility in others.  I dont have all the answers.

[arhag]

I doubt anyone has actually made it to the end of my ramblings, but if you have, wow, you probably think I'm nuts.  Or maybe not. 

I did made it to end and no I don't think you're nuts, I think your post was great.

Although, I think we may disagree on our definition of the word "morality" (or maybe we are just overloading the word with multiple definitions which can lead to confusion). Also, how do you define "collective benefit". Benefit is itself subjective. It requires a value system to judge whether one action or state is greater by some metric (that is where the subjective value system comes in) than another action or state. I think the best you can do empirically or scientifically is a bunch of conditional statements: "if you value this then it is in your benefit to do this".

By the way, lesswrong.com is such a great website.


 

[Ander]

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.   

Stan, I used to think like this.    Treating science more like an appeal to authority (Top scientists say X is true, therefore it is true), rather than the process by evidence can be gathered for or against a hypothesis. 

In that mindset, religion is the ultimate appeal to authority and it feels 'stronger' than science.  That is, top religious people say X is true with ABSOLUTE certainty!  But scientists cannot absolutely prove something, they only claim that X is very, very likely.  Religion is stronger, and science is very useful, but ultimately cannot answer many questions.



There is reality out there.  The universe, and whatever greater reality lies beyond it, are real.  This is the 'territory'. 

There is also our mental belief about what is real.   Our belief, our mental model of the world, is the 'map'.  Our belief can be correct or incorrect.   The map can accurately reflect the territory, or it can fail to match it. 

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory


Through empiricism (observation - in a wider sense than just 'seeing with our eyes'), we can gather evidence about whether our mental map matches the territory of reality, or not. 

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jn/how_much_evidence_does_it_take/


So in the case of the top quark, we cannot see it with our eyes.  Our standard method of updating our mental map to match the territory of reality doesnt work.  When our shoelaces were untied, we learned this because photons from the sun bounced off our untied shoelaces, into our eyes, and our brain processed that information.  It then updated its belief that our shoes were tied (with very high probability), to our shoes being untied (with very high probability). 

We cannot do that with Top Quarks, but that does not mean we cannot gather evidence about whether or not there is a thing in reality which has the properties we describe with the term "Top quark". 

Building upon our previous understandings, physicists constructed a model of the universe, a hypothesis, which could be true or false.  The model predicted top quarks, and predicted they would have certain properties.   The model predicted that if it was true, when we smashed certain particles together in an accelerator at high energies, we would sometimes see top quarks be generated.  It predicted what percentage of the time and under what circumstances they would appear.

We tested this, building the accelerator and using it.  We found that to high precision, the prediction of top quarks (our map) matched the reality of what we observed (the territory).  While it would not be possible to gain ABSOLUTE certainty of this, the probability that it was true became very very high. 

(You never get absolute certainty or uncertainty in something, because 0 and 1 are not probabilities!)   http://lesswrong.com/lw/mp/0_and_1_are_not_probabilities/


More recently, we did this process again with the Higgs Boson.  The following book by Physicist Sean Carroll does a fantastic job of describing the theory behind, and process of discovering evidence for the higgs boson, how much evidence we gathered, etc:
http://www.amazon.com/Particle-End-Universe-Higgs-Boson/dp/0142180300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422480417&sr=8-1&keywords=the+particle+at+the+end+of+the+universe



With the scientific method, we become the lens that sees its flaws.  We can recognize that our mental map is not guaranteed to match the territory of reality.  We can figure out what beliefs are correct or are wrong, and modify them.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jm/the_lens_that_sees_its_flaws/



We know that we might just be a brain in a jar, and a demon is feeding us inputs that correspond to the world we see  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon).  We also know that the universe might operate on mathematical laws, the fabric of real things (http://lesswrong.com/lw/eva/the_fabric_of_real_things/)

While we cannot say for CERTAIN that we are in one and not the other, one of these scenarios is massively more complex than the other.  A reality which operates on a certain number of mathematical laws which govern what is real and what is not, can be specified in some number of bits of information.  On the other hand, a demon simulating the entire universe and all inputs and outputs we see, requires an enormous number of bits of information in order to specify it. 

This allows us to compare the probability of each of these being true by Occam's Razor: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/


In the end, through the scientific method, we can know things.  We cannot know with absolute certainty (100% is not a real probability).  But we can know with a high probability.

We do not need to rely on appeals to authority.  Appeals to authority are only as accurate as the mental map of the authority you have chosen to follow.  But what matters in terms of something really being true, is whether that map matches the territory of reality.



Returning to the earlier question of whether there is morality is subjective:
While morality is not specified in the laws of nature that govern whether something is real or not, neither are most of the complex things which with we interact with in our lives.  Neither is the idea of what 'life' is.

As particle physics is built upon whatever underlies it, and chemistry is build upon that, and biology is build upon that, and consciousness is build upon that, leading to what it means to be a human being, so can morality also come about. 

We can empirically study societies of sentient beings which we refer to as humans, and determine certain ways in which their collective benefit could be maximized.  These things can be 'morality'. 

Amazingly complex things can come from things that seem simple.
The mandlebrot set comes form the equation Z(n+1) = Z(n)^2 + C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

It is fascinating in its complexity.

So can morality, free will, life, consciousness, biology, chemistry, physics, etc, derive from laws of nature that we are approaching a good understanding of but do not yet fully know. 

Steven Pinker would say that morality "is out there" and can be determined empirically, and I would agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature


I doubt anyone has actually made it to the end of my ramblings, but if you have, wow, you probably think I'm nuts.  Or maybe not. 

[bytemaster]

I want to do a blog post on this at some point.  Remind me if I don't get to it

[Troglodactyl]

Thanks Pascal.    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.

Indeed.  I don't like Pascal's Wager as a defense, I was just labeling it since I saw it in Stan's response about bears in the woods.

[Stan]

Yes, but there may also be a completely observable universe (like the one Science assumes as a foundational axiom) containing a big computer (perhaps sitting inside a test tube on a turtle in a hot tub) simulating the one we are actually living in and Science couldn't tell the difference.  If that were the case, the only way we could learn our true situation is if someone on the outside chose to reveal something about it to those on the inside - perhaps as part of a controlled experiment to see how humans behave when they think they have been left alone to their own devices. 

If that were to happen at one or more points in time,
Science would completely miss it.

Occam's razor is nice when one needs the simplest possible equation that will do the job.  (I find that F=ma is highly useful, even though it does not fully describe the behavior of a photon passing a bit too close to Alpha Centauri.)   

But, to presume that the (meta)universe is as simple as it can be is an unwarranted assumption - unworthy of what we have already learned since Science replaced superstition.

The true nature of the (meta)universe may not be constrained by what Science can prove.

"Can't prove it is!"
"Can't prove it's not!"
"Did too!"
"Did not!"

"A man's gotta know his limitations."  - Clint Eastwood

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[Myshadow]

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. 

Characterising reality in this way leads to an endless causal chain. The reality within can only be completely described from the more encompassing reality, where there will be yet more beings in their version of lab coats speculating on their own reality. And by the same logic, that reality can only be described by an even larger reality. And so forth. And then likewise that infinite hierarchy of realities can only be described by a meta-reality. And that meta-reality by an even larger meta-reality, and so forth. Sounds like a long (yet interesting) film....

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

—Hawking, 1988

[Myshadow]

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?

Thanks I'm glad you found it as interesting as I did. I don't think it is, the fact that it is required that people are required to eat to survive is not negated by the fact that some people choose not to eat or survive.

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.

No i don't think there is. I still don't think this negates the validity of universally preferable behaviour because of the reason above.

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.

I don't think that interactions can be put in a different class to other behaviours like drinking or eating. I think they should be subject to the same method of analysis to evaluate whether or not they are universally preferable as eating or drinking are. The examples given aren't relevant to morals, but they are proof of universally preferable behaviours.

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).

I would say that he has irrefutably proved that eating and drinking are UPB if the objective is survival. Could the same framework be applied to morally relevant behaviours with the same certainty of results? If it can, then any behaviour can then be evaluated using UPB framework to determine its validity in assuring an agreed upon outcome.

In regards to the example given by arhag, I don't think that the apathy toward ethics/economics/philosophy of most people proves that morals are subjective or that UPB doesn't exist. The majority may be apathetic toward these things out of choice, but it does not mean that it is preferable for them to be that way if they want to live well and be happy, or even preferable if they want to preserve the meager amount of wealth they have by understanding the system they support is destined to fail and looking for alternatives... If anything, the results of the apathetic nature of most people help to prove that apathy toward these things is not preferable if you want a society where the initiation of force is minimized.

I also reject the assertion that the scientific method is subjective. We certainly don't have to use it if we don't want to but that doesn't make its results any less consistent, accurate and it certainly doesn't change the way it works.

[starspirit]

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. 

Characterising reality in this way leads to an endless causal chain. The reality within can only be completely described from the more encompassing reality, where there will be yet more beings in their version of lab coats speculating on their own reality. And by the same logic, that reality can only be described by an even larger reality. And so forth. And then likewise that infinite hierarchy of realities can only be described by a meta-reality. And that meta-reality by an even larger meta-reality, and so forth. Sounds like a long (yet interesting) film....