31 replies to this topic

[ValorantX]

Anyone can ask a question and generally we'll spend a day or more trying to answer this one question. If the question is resolved quickly, we'll just ask another one.

I'll start with something simple.

You are found dying after eating a poisonous mushroom and you're sent away to an unknown mysterious hospital where you're being taken care of. There are two nurses who offer two different treatment except you are told that one of the nurses is offering a placebo that might kill you if something goes wrong and the other one has the correct medication. (we'll just refer to them as 1. poison 2. cure) Both of them are aware of which treatment they are holding and you have to take one of them. The first catch is that you can only ask one question to one of the nurses which will help you ascertain who's holding which. The second catch is that one nurse is forced to always be honest while the other nurse always intentionally lies, and you don't know who is which. (we'll refer to them as 1. truth teller and 2. liar)

What is that one question?

Edited by Saphsin, 25 November 2011 - 04:20 AM.

[©®åƒ†¥µåGGø†]

Enclosed in spoiler tags in case people want to work out on their own

Spoiler

If I ask the other nurse "who has the cure?", what will they say?

There are two possibilities.

1. Truth teller has cure and liar has poison.
2. Liar has cure and truth teller has poison.

Who has the cure doesn't matter though (well, it's what you're trying to find out but...), as in the first possibility (if you ask who has the cure) the liar and truth teller will both point towards themselves while in the second possibility they will both point away. You can't ask who is lying, because the liar or the truth teller might have the cure (not to mention you'll just end up with the same results). The problem you face is that with such questions, the answers diverge. Thus you must phrase the question as such that regardless of who you ask you will only get one answer.

Since one always makes false statements and the other makes true statements, the best way to do this is through negation. Basically, you must force the truth teller to lie (the liar is gonna keep lying no matter what). The only way to ensure that the truth teller will tell a lie is by asking what the other (liar) will say. Regardless of who is asked, they will both point to the one that has the poison (if you ask about the cure) or the cure (if you ask about the poison). In the former, you choose the opposite of who they point to. In the latter, you choose the one pointed to.

As you said, it is pretty simple once you recognize that it's basically just a matter of p and ~p.

Edited by ragnarok_water, 19 November 2011 - 02:52 PM.

[KidCongo]

Just ask each, "What will the other guy answer, if I ask ask him if he has the cure?", whoever answers yes, has the cure.

[ValorantX]

Correct

1. hypothetical situation (Liar has the poison, truth teller has the cure)

You ask (to liar): What will the other nurse answer if I asked her if she had the cure?
Answer back: No
You ask (to truth teller): What will the other nurse answer if I asked her if she had the cure?
Answer back: yes

2. hypothetical situation (Liar has the cure, truth teller has the poision)

You ask (to truth teller): What will the other nurse answer if I asked her if she had the cure?
Answer back: No
You ask (to liar): What will the other nurse answer if I asked her if she had the cure?
Answer back: yes

So if you ask this one question to either nurse, the one who says yes is the one who holds the cure.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Alright second question:

Consider a hypothetical situation in which evil scientists kidnapped you in your sleep, surgically removed it from your body and placed it in a life-support system with the right nutrients and connected your neural networks through wiring to a super computer. The computer would then simulate a virtual reality into your consciousness (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) tricking you into believing that you are still up and about engaging in a normally embodied round of activities in the real world. The question is whether we can conclude from our experience about the nature of the world "in which we apparently" live in. Might you be nothing but a brain in a vat?

Edited by Saphsin, 19 November 2011 - 04:52 PM.

[Polboron]

i'm guessing you meant "brain" when you said "it?" The answer then would be to take the red pill.

okay just kidding, but is there a right or wrong answer here? this seems more philosophical than the first question, rather than a riddle. i believe that reality is simply the result of our perception. whether we are in a brain in a vat or people in the real world, it becomes our reality either way.

[ValorantX]

okay just kidding, but is there a right or wrong answer here? this seems more philosophical than the first question, rather than a riddle. i believe that reality is simply the result of our perception. whether we are in a brain in a vat or people in the real world, it becomes our reality either way.

The question is whether we can know whether we are brains in a vat or not, not what seems real to us. Besides, it's hardly a claim with any ground to say our perception is "what's actually real," that's just playing word games. Are you to say that for a person who gets treated in a hospital for losing an arm, who still perceives an arm to still be there (phantom-limb phenomenon) that the statement "the patient has his arm intact" is actually a true statement in reality?

To the question of whether there is actually an answer to this, yes there is one.

Edited by Saphsin, 20 November 2011 - 08:03 PM.

[©®åƒ†¥µåGGø†]

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that reality is the result of our perception (though I know what you mean). I think of reality as being something ideal off of which perception is based. Do not forget that in the brain in vat example, our perception is still that of people in the real world but in reality we are brains in a vat. What we perceive may become our "reality", but this reality and that reality are two different things.

The question is whether we can know whether we are brains in a vat or not?

It can pretty much be extended to ask whether or not we can know what is real. We can't. For any conceivable effort to determine the shape that reality takes, you can come up with an alternative explanation. Virtual reality is rather convenient for this, as you can pretty much replicate anything including reflexes or even death if need be. Granted, there are a number of practical difficulties, but...

In any case, we could come up with any number of meaningless statements to claim that we have some sort of grasp on reality, but there's no particular reason to assume this is true other than perhaps a desire for security. When it comes down to it though, what we really have to ask ourselves is "does it actually matter", and I believe this is more along the lines of what Polboron meant (correct me if I'm wrong) though the way it was phrased was a bit awkward.

Besides, it's hardly a claim with any ground to say our perception is "what's actually real," that's just playing word games.

Philosophy is about 2% logic and 90% word games. We're still arguing about the other 8%.

Spoiler

We haven't actually defined perception or reality at all so it would not be invalid at this juncture to say that if I lose my arm, but my brain still thinks it is there then it is there in reality. All I have to do is define reality as being based entirely upon my thought patterns. I didn't actually lose my arm. The difference between perception and reality merely stems from poor eyesight and faulty communication between higher and lower consciousness. I can argue that this entire forum is simply the figment of an overactive imagination (aka reality), and in fact this site only updates itself whenever my brain "logs on". The "reality" is that I know katakana, hiragana, and kanji and have translated all these manga (I don't know it at all and I've not translated any manga... don't give me credit for anything on this site), but my perception is that I have to go to a site to read scanlations (don't bother tearing these apart, as I spent about thirty seconds coming up with them). So if this is all just in my head (hypothetical situation, mind you), why bother with socialization or anything at all for that matter? Well, the way I see it, the more "collective input", the more complete of a picture I get. Not to mention, the me in my head is boring. Indeed, I find the other people version of me far more interesting than I find myself. There is also a continuous exchange of information between me me and you me, and I me like to play fetch with dog me. And that's kind of how I feel about philosophy at times. You can't do much besides say "your original assumptions lead to a contradiction". All I have to do is manipulate those assumptions so I can say pretty much whatever I feel like. Then it just becomes "That's a stupid assumption! No, that's a stupid assumption! Your assumption is stupider than mine! Oh yeah, well then how come my assumption has better grades than yours? Well my assumption just beat up your assumption on the playground at school while all the other little assumptions just stood by and watched! How dare they! I know, right?". Don't get me wrong, philosophy can be pretty useful (and fun at times). That being said, there are lot's of times when people get so caught up in making a point that they don't actually realize they are saying the same things. Not to mention, it can be downright annoying at times. Like right about... now!

Summary of spoiler (don't try and find it above because it's not there. For that matter, you're probably better off not reading anything I put in a spoiler tags unless you have plenty of time to kill.): I do not accept your phantom limb question. It contains the implicit assumption that being treated in the hospital for a lost arm is reality, and that the "perceived arm" is perceived. I posit that you also perceive to be treated at the hospital for a lost arm. What this gives us is two contradictory perceptions resulting in an either-or situation (barring the inclusion of some other alternate scenario, but let's not go there, yes?). What it does not tell us is which one is true. We can make the assumption lost arm=true (as such, arm still there=false) or arm still there= true (as such, arm lost= false). We can also make the assumption that both are false, in which case the statement itself would be false (that being said a very reasonable case could be made that one is merely the negation of the other... p.s. it also should be noted that at this point when I say true I mean "I have no arm" or "I still have that arm" is true as opposed to true being "I don't see an arm" or "my fingers hurt") Point is, it's not a matter of what is or isn't true. It's a matter of what we are assuming to be true. That being said, one thing this counterpoint does effectively demonstrate is that perception is not necessarily "what is real" (though phantom limb syndrome does have "real" causes). It falls short of disproving "what is real" is perception (indeed, in practical usage one could pretty much say that reality is basically all that we, upon perceiving, assume is true), but that is what defining things is for.

For those that really really really don't like to read (don't try and find this above, because it is not there): The confusion here stems from a more idealistic form of reality vs. a more practical one. They're really neither "right" nor "wrong", but they should not be used interchangeably.

Thus concludes: Dinner with a Sophist.

In any case, I feel kind of bad about not coming up with a question, so I'll try to think of something... tomorrow probably.

[ValorantX]

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that reality is the result of our perception (though I know what you mean). I think of reality as being something ideal off of which perception is based. Do not forget that in the brain in vat example, our perception is still that of people in the real world but in reality we are brains in a vat. What we perceive may become our "reality", but this reality and that reality are two different things.

My question wasn't whether you can poetically define the word reality though. My question was whether if the proposition, "I see a tree in front of me," coincides with an actual tree in the external world or not. Is there an actual tree I'm perceiving with my eyes or is the result of electrical impulses fed into my brain by a super computer? As I explained in my previous example, someone experiencing a phantom-limb may perceive that there is an arm there and may claim, "I'm moving my arm around," but that claim is obviously not true. So why won't you try to answer my question seriously.

It can pretty much be extended to ask whether or not we can know what is real. We can't.

Why not? Are you saying that it isn't absurd to propose that the hand you put in front of your face is actually not real (G.E. Moore 1939) or that basic mathematical axioms (such 1+1=2) may be false?

The skeptical point of view
Where S is a subject, sp is a skeptical possibility, such as the brain in a vat hypothesis, and q is a knowledge claim about the world:

• If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
• S doesn't know that not-sp
• Therefore, S doesn't know that q

We can know certain facts about the world?

• If S doesn't know that not-sp, then S doesn't know that q
• S knows that q
• Therefore, S knows that not-sp

In other words, skeptical possibilities are limited to adopting such a premise in the first place. The response isn't necessarily to disprove skeptical possibilities (which say in fact, that we can never do so) but to suggest it's pointless to demonstrate facts we are sure to be certain about. That goes into another whole huge discussion though so I'm not going to delve on that.

For any conceivable effort to determine the shape that reality takes, you can come up with an alternative explanation.

Yes, like authors do in order to show the fictional world represented in their manga; unless you're saying that modern scientific endeavors are not necessarily more valid than Aristotle's picture of the world.

Virtual reality is rather convenient for this, as you can pretty much replicate anything including reflexes or even death if need be.

I'll give you a possible start one may use against the brain in a vat hypothesis: with modern understandings of the brain and how it incorporates information, can a super computer really do that? (If it is so easy, why don't you make one) The question of how we can reach the bottom side of the Earth isn't necessarily solved, but dissolved when we learn that it is no longer flat.

In any case, we could come up with any number of meaningless statements to claim that we have some sort of grasp on reality, but there's no particular reason to assume this is true other than perhaps a desire for security. When it comes down to it though, what we really have to ask ourselves is "does it actually matter", and I believe this is more along the lines of what Polboron meant (correct me if I'm wrong) though the way it was phrased was a bit awkward.

I mean yeah you can just remain indifferent and enjoy life. Intellectuals want to know though.

Philosophy is about 2% logic and 90% word games.We're still arguing about the other 8%.

http://en.wikipedia....s_of_philosophy

I suggest looking through that page as an introduction to field, since it seems you haven't read any philosophical texts to make that claim. And I didn't expect anyone too either, it's a forum and it's for fun. I wanted to get responses from people who are new to field to make good guesses of how we may actually know we are brains in a vat. -___-

We haven't actually defined perception or reality at all so it would not be invalid at this juncture to say that if I lose my arm, but my brain still thinks it is there then it is there in reality.

I'm quite sure no one has a definition of reality yet (although many intellectuals have many good conjectures of how we can best describe reality) but I'm quite sure we a good idea what perception is. Open a college psychology textbook.

All I have to do is define reality as being based entirely upon my thought patterns.

I see, so if I actually believe that the 2012 apocalypse is going to happen then that is the reality for me.

I didn't actually lose my arm. The difference between perception and reality merely stems from poor eyesight and faulty communication between higher and lower consciousness.

That is quite untrue, it is caused from the fact that your brain has not yet reorganized the neural networks that are responsible for sensations in your limbs.

I can argue that this entire forum is simply the figment of an overactive imagination (aka reality), and in fact this site only updates itself whenever my brain "logs on".

I mean you proposed that possibility (the mad scientist must be very queer to go so far a length to deceive you into believing this forum exists) but you haven't really prove it yet.....

Edited by Saphsin, 23 November 2011 - 01:00 AM.

[ValorantX]

I do not accept your phantom limb question. It contains the implicit assumption that being treated in the hospital for a lost arm is reality, and that the "perceived arm" is perceived. I posit that you also perceive to be treated at the hospital for a lost arm.

I'm not though..... I'm in my room typing this up as a reply to you but you may be right; the phenomenon of phantom-limb may actually a hoax and the reality may be that the devil is tricking my eyes when I look it up on Wikipedia.

What this gives us is two contradictory perceptions resulting in an either-or situation.

There aren't 2 contradictory perceptions, there is only one. What the person is perceiving is an arm and what's actually there is a torn off limb.

We can make the assumption lost arm=true (as such, arm still there=false) or arm still there= true (as such, arm lost= false). We can also make the assumption that both are false, in which case the statement itself would be false (that being said a very reasonable case could be made that one is merely the negation of the other... p.s. it also should be noted that at this point when I say true I mean "I have no arm" or "I still have that arm" is true as opposed to true being "I don't see an arm" or "my fingers hurt")

Both sides aren't assuming anything and no one has to. If I take a bazooka and blow my enemy's arm off, no one has to assume anything about the fact that he lost his arm. The one who is perceiving the arm to be there isn't assuming the arm to be there as if he was wondering to himself "hmm I feel an arm there but there might not be one" rather he found no reason to question it. In this case, the fact that his arm is gone is told to him by the doctor and the patient can confirm that this is true by simply opening his eyes.

Point is, it's not a matter of what is or isn't true. It's a matter of what we are assuming to be true.

So evidence of the proposition of whether your girlfriend actually cheated on you or not doesn't matter as long as you assume it to be true? (my eyes may be tricking me) Anyways I want to know what is true.

That being said, one thing this counterpoint does effectively demonstrate is that perception is not necessarily "what is real" (though phantom limb syndrome does have "real" causes). It falls short of disproving "what is real" is perception (indeed, in practical usage one could pretty much say that reality is basically all that we, upon perceiving, assume is true), but that is what defining things is for.

In other words, you're proposing that it is possible for solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) or idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism), claiming that neither can be disproved. I haven't really seen you doing either though..... all you have been doing is repeating that you can't be certain about any claims because you can propose different contrary-possibilities.



Anyways after one or more replies by tomorrow, I'll be posting up my answer to this and a new question.

Edited by Saphsin, 23 November 2011 - 01:01 AM.

[LightYami]

Question: Is there a really simple answer to this, for example, after I see the answer, I would be like this: ''Oh, why I didn't think of that?'' or do you need to think a lot...? ^^

[ValorantX]

Ugh I'm being really lazy right now so sorry if my explanation runs short ==;


The question of whether we may be brains in a vat target two different assumptions:

1. That when we speak of brains in a vat, "brain in a vat" means the same thing in both the virtual world and the real world. (descriptions in both worlds mean the same thing)
2. Thus if you can empirically prove that it is impossible to exist with the perceptions and sensations that we have of the world as brains in a vat, we are probably not brains in a vat (it is scientifically impossible to be a brain in a vat and experience the world as we do)

The second one is long and tedious to explain, so I'll have to skip most of the details and go to the main point.

Causal theory of reference: A term refers to an object only if there is an appropriate causal connection between that term and the object

The following term doesn't mean that when we speak of brains in a vat in the virtual world, it may or may not target another object in the real world (or nothing at all). Rather when we speak certain words, we incorporate their meaning into something we experienced in this world. (Wikipedia explanation: Words always refer to the kinds of things they were coined to refer to, thus the kinds of things their user, or the user's ancestors, experienced.) Try to understand it like this, if an ant were to accidentally draw a picture of Winston Churchill in the sand, few would claim that the ant represented or referred to Churchill. Similarly, if I accidentally sneeze “Genghis Khan,” just because I verbalize the words does not mean that I refer to the infamous Mongolian conqueror, for I may have never heard of him before. Reference cannot simply be an accident: or words do not refer to objects “magically” or intrinsically. So when we philosophize about brains in a vat in this world, it must mean the exact same thing in the actual world. In other words, the brains in a vat that experience have mean the same thing as brains in a vat in the real world, and since our world's neuroscience have lead to many empirical conclusions on how the mechanisms in the brain work, and bound by laws of physics and chemistry (and therefore mathematics) it'd logically follow that probably brains in the real world work in similar way in a embodied logically sound world (or else we wouldn't be referring to the same brains anymore).

If they didn't mean the same thing, we'd run into this sort of problem

• Assume we are Brains in a vat or "BIVs"
• If we claim we are BIVs, the claim “we are brains in a vat” is true if and only we are Brains in a Vat (as it means in the real world) or BIVs*
• If we claim we are BIVs, then “brain” does not refer to brain*, and “vat” does not refer to vat*
• So if we are BIVs, we are not BIVs*
• But if we are BIVs* but not BIVs, then “we are BIVs” is false (as said by the BIV*)
• If “brain in a vat” does not refer to brains in a vat*, then “we are brains in a vat” is false
• If we are BIVs, then “we are BIVs” is false
• If we are BIVs, then we are not BIVs which is incoherent

Think about number 2, which can be explained by “We are brains in a vat” is true if we have sense impressions of being brains in a vat

If a person such as myself were a "brain in a vat", whose every experience is received from electrical wiring, but if "brain in a vat" as I know it (BIV) is not a real brain in a vat (BIV*) then “We are brains in a vat” as uttered by a BIV would presumably be false, since a brain in a vat would not have sense-impressions of being a brain in a vat. My idea of a "brain" would not refer to a "real" brain, since I have never experienced such a thing. So, if I were to say "brain in a vat", and a person in the real person were to say "I'm a brain in a vat", what I would actually mean relative to him is "I'm a brain-image in a vat-image", which is incoherent. In other words, if a brain in a vat stated "I am a brain in a vat", it would always be stating a falsehood. On the other hand, if the brain making this statement is really just a brain in the vat then by stating "I am a brain in a vat" what the brain is really stating is "I am what nerve stimuli have convinced me is a 'brain,' and I reside in an image that I have been convinced is called a 'vat'." That is, a brain in a vat would never be thinking about real brains or real vats.

Thus to make any meaningful talk about brains in a vat and their correspondence to the real world, real brains and virtual brains have to be the same thing (or similar enough for the two words to mean the same thing). So is creating such a scenario in a person's mind possible? There isn't an absolute knockdown argument but there is a very good reason to be think not.

There are multiple arguments but I'll show just one from Daniel Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained" as an example:

Spoiler

"Let's take a moment to consider, then, just how daunting the task facing the evil scientists would be. We can imagine them building up to the hard tasks from some easy beginnings. They begin with a conveniently comatose brain, kept alive but lacking all input from the optic nerves, the auditory nerves, the somatosensory nerves, and all the other afferent or input, paths to the brain. It is sometimes assumed that such a 'deafferented" brain would naturally stay in a comatose state forever, needing no morphine to keep it dormant, but there is some empirical evidence to suggest that spontaneous waking might still occur in these dire circumstances. I think we can suppose that were you to awake in such a state, you would find yourself in horrible straits: blind, deaf completely numb, with on sense of your body's orientation.
Not wanting to horrify you, then, the scientists arrange to wake you up by piping stereo music (suitably encoded as nerve impulses) into your auditory nerves. They . They also arrange for the signals that would normally come from your vestibular system or inner ear to indicate that you are lying on your back, but otherwise paralyzed, numb, blind. This much should be within the limits of technical virtuosity in the near future - perhaps possible even today. They might then go on to stimulate the tracts that used to innervate your epidermis, providing it with the input that would normally have been produced by a gentle, even warmth over the ventral (belly) surface of your body, and (getting fancier) they might stimulate the dorsal (back) epidermal nerves in a way that simulated the tingly texture of grains of sand pressing into your back. "Great!" you say to yourself: "Here I am, lying on my back on the beach, paralyzed and blind, listening to rather nice music, but probably in danger of sunburn. How did I get here and how can I call for help?"
But now suppose the scientists, having accomplished all this, tackle the more difficult problem of convincing you that you are not a mere beach potato, but an agent capable of engaging in some form of activity in the world. Starting with little steps, they decide to lift part of the "paralysis" of your phantom body and let you wiggle your right index finger in the sand. They permit the sensory experience of moving your finger to occur which is accomplished by giving you the kinesthetic feedback associated with the relevant volitional or motor signals in the output or efferent part of your nervous system, but they must also arrange to remove the numbness from your phantom finger, and provide the stimulation for the feeling that the motion of the imaginary sand around your finger would provoke.
Suddenly, they are faced with a problem that will quickly get out of hand, for just how the sand will feel depends on just how you decide to move your finger. The problem of calculating the proper feedback, generating or composing it, and then presenting it you in real time is going to be computationally intractable on even the fastest computer, and if the evil scientists decide to solve the real-time problem by pre-calculating and "canning" all the possible responses for playback, they will just trade one insoluble problem for another: there are too many possibilities to store. In short, our evil scientists will be swamped by combinatorial explosion as soon as they give you any genuine exploratory powers in this imaginary world.
It is a familiar wall these scientists have hit; we see its shadow in the boring stereotypes in every video game. The alternatives open for action have to be strictly - and unrealistically - limited to keep the task of the world-representers within feasible bounds. If the scientists can do no better than convince you that you are doomed to the lifetime of playing Donkey Kong, they are evil scientists indeed.
Although the task is not, strictly speaking, infinite, the amount of information obtainable in short order by an inquisitive human being is staggeringly large. Engineers measure information flow in bits per second, or speak of the bandwidth of the channels through which information flows. Television requires greater bandwidth than radio and high-definition television would have a still greater bandwidth. High-definition smello-feelo television would have a still greater bandwidth, and interactive smello-feelo television would have an astronomical bandwidth, because it constantly branches into thousands of slightly different trajectories through the (imaginary) world. Throw a skeptic a dubious coin, and in a second or two of hefting, scratching, ringing, tasting, and just plain looking at how the sun glints on its surface, the skeptic will consume more bits of information than a Cray super computer can organize in a year. Making a real but counterfeit coin is child's play; making a simulated coin out of nothing but organized nerve stimulation is beyond technology now and probably forever.
The development of "Virtual Reality" systems for recreation and research is currently undergoing a boom. The state of the art is impressive: electronically rigged gloves that provide a convincing interface for "manipulating" virtual objects, and head mounted visual displays that permit you to explore virtual environments of considerable complexity. The limitations of these systems are apparent, however and they bear out my point: it is only by various combinations of physical replicas and schematization (a relatively coarse-grained representation) that robust illusions can be sustained. And even at their best, they are experiences of virtual surreality, not something you might mistake for the real thing for more than a moment. If you really want to fool someone into thinking he is in a cage with a gorilla, enlisting the help of an actor in a gorilla suit is going to be your best bet for a long time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alright next question:

Suppose a scenario in which Jim, a botanist doing research, lives in a South American country led by a brutal dictator. One day Jim finds himself in the central square of a small town facing 20 Indians who have been randomly captured and tied up as examples of what will happen to rebels. The captain who has arrested the Indians says that if Jim will kill one of them, the others will be released in honor of Jim's status as a guest, but if he does not, all the Indians will be killed.

What is the proper moral judgment in this situation. Is there a proper moral judgment at all?

Edited by Saphsin, 26 November 2011 - 05:35 PM.

[eXon]

Well this question can be resumed pretty simply by: Is it moral to kill one to save many?

I'm not sure there is a final answer to this question because it's too deeply tied to personal beliefs, social growth environment and more importantly the situation.

In your exemple what if the indians randomnly captured are cannibals who eat small childrens? Wouldn't they be better dead in order to put an end to the horrors they commit? But on the other hand who are you to pass judgement on them and call it a moral obligation? What if the single indian you kill was to be the father of the man or woman destined to bring peace to his country?

This justification of your crimes as a way to save many or to accomplish a greater goal has always been used by tyrants and dictators throughout History to justify their crimes. What are a few lives compared to the benefits humanity as a whole could take from such acts?
But it doesn't mean the benefits aren't always worth it. If you were teleported in 1918 in the prison Hitler was held in, would you not be tempted to kill him?

In conclusion I'd say there is no proper moral judgement because each solutions lead to the death of a potential innocent person. Moreover in your situation, and when confronted to people who are willing to randomnly kidnap other human beings to summarily execute them, who is to say they will keep their word and release the others? They may just be trying to tie you to their crimes so you'll have no other choice than to help them.

[KidCongo]

There are no moral grey areas, just people unwilling to accept, that their actions might not be completely moral. Killing another person is always, under all circumstances - even to save someone's life - immoral; most people don't realise, that a moral action can be the "wrong" thing to do. And just to make things clear, I don't consider myself to be an especially moral/immoral person, and I often have a hard time doing the "right" thing.

Edited by KidCongo, 24 November 2011 - 10:16 AM.

[eXon]

I don't think moral is quite as clear-cut as you define it. There is degree to moral obligations. And even if it's not grey areas as you rightly define it, you have to ask yourself what is the most immoral decision. To kill one or to refuse to save many. But in the end I agree with your statement that killing, regardless of the situation is immoral.

But in regard of the question that's why I tried to emphasise that the key word was proper. There is a moral answer to this question that is not to kill the indian. But since the moral answer might be in opposition to the "right" thing to do then there is no proper answer imho.

[ValorantX]

Expected but straightforward answers, this makes things a lot easier for me to respond to. I'll just introduce one idea after another to continue the discussion.

One thing you should notice when we talk about morality is that many of us take for granted "good and bad", "right and wrong", "moral and immoral", and "moral obligations and responsibilities" but people often avoid asking what these are. Many people who think of morality as direction in making better life choices or believe in some sort of universalism often make judgments without knowing what tendencies those judgments consist of. For an example:

Why do you value "moral" actions over "immoral" actions? What kind of ideals does following "morality" actually amount to? Why should one follow actions that are considered moral if they don't benefit the individual or others.
What actually makes an "immoral" action, immoral? What do such judgments consist of?
And most importantly, what does it "mean" for the person in question to make a moral choice.

These questions try to answer the 3 important questions in ancient to contemporary moral philosophy:

1. What does morality consist of
2. What makes a moral statement true
3. What should morality strive for

The proposition "It is wrong to murder" or "love is the thing in life most worth living for" is not true in the same sense as scientific facts, statistical interpretations, and mathematical axioms because they are not empirically verified. This is where the whole "universalism vs. moral relativism" and it's a pretty dirty argument.

Universalism: the idea that morality is objective and is true applying for everyone. "Murder is wrong no matter who it is or where you're from" is one example people who believe in universalism use. If you live in Nazi Germany where you believe killing Jews is the right decision to do, you're wrong regardless of what your cultural values are. (however "killing a mass murderer to protect your loved one" can be a universally true moral statement also)
Moral Relativism: Morality is subjectively judged: there is no universal moral standard to abide by. This doesn't necessarily mean it's ok to do whatever you want, but that the validity of moral choices should be judged in different circumstances for different people and there is no absolute way of looking at things.

Both views are both devoid of something obvious and are actually bound by the same assumptions. What actually makes moral judgments valid since they are not "judged" by empirical verification?
This of it this way. Any moral statement (ex. "It is wrong for the rich to steal from the unfortunate" is analogous to which of the following:

1. "Cow dung tastes better than Baked Potatoes": The average would agree that tastes are subjective because people enjoy different things and there is no universal "right or wrong tastes" but there seems to be something invalid about the statement. Nearly every person agrees that baked potatoes are probably better tasting than cow dung, and they are forced to make a judgment because they all have taste buds and a sense of aesthetics. In other words, taste aesthetics is a judgment we have to make whether or not want to because are minds automatically can tell which is the more attractive choice. In reply eXon, whether we like baked potatoes or not, it still is a better choice than the former and there is a sense of validity in which choice you are to make. Unless you are to say that morality is not involved at all (which it is, because new methods from neuroscience show that distinct areas of the brain light up when making moral choices), whether or not there is a suitable moral choice to make, you can't make the claim that there is a less valid moral judgement to make, otherwise there would be no moral dilemma in the decision.

2. "It is right to wear a hat on top of your head": Unlike the first one, there doesn't seem to be anything in inherent in nature (such as the first example above) to judge whether or not hats should be worn on heads. The proposition "it is wrong to wear hats on your feet" does not have the same truth value as "the derivative of 2x is not the summation of ten 0's" But the statement seems to generally be universally true based on the meaning of the word hat itself and it's relation to the statement. The definition of hat is "something that keeps your eyes out of the sun", "something that looks appealing on your head", or the like makes the judgment true in itself.

3. A possible third interpretation?

-----------------------------------

EDIT: btw, this doesn't seem to belong in forum games anymore, shouldn't it be the kind of topic that should count towards our posts?

Edited by Saphsin, 25 November 2011 - 04:21 AM.

[eXon]

It's becoming tougher to clearly answer you. My english is still lacking in order to engage in challenging philosophical debates on morality

I think you misundertood what I tried to say. Morality is an ideal, a utopy humanity should strive to achieve. In a perfect world populated by a perfect specy, such moral debates would be irrelevant because there would be one clear answer and doing something else would be unthinkable. Sadly this is not such a world. Therefore when confronted to a moral dilemna we have to make a choice, and to do so whe have to weight our options.
I'm personnally more of a relativist than a universalist so it will shape my argument hereinafter. Obviously you're free to disagree.

I think it's rather arrogant and blindsided to think that only one set of rules can be used while weighting these choices. For me moral considerations depend too much on where you grew up, whether Christianity, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion/philosophical beliefs (like confucianism, not really a religion but with too much influence in China and other asian country to be disregarded) shaped your country throughout it's History, if you're poor or rich and many other parameter which have and will continue to define and refine each and every individuals differently.

This, imho, is the reason why there can be no empirical proof that baked potatoes are more tasty than cow dung. While I agree (not that I tasted Cow dung, so I may be wrong)with this statement, some people positively hate the taste of potatoes. So for them this statement may not be true. For each individual there is or may be a different answer. The more your dilemna touch to something essential, the more a single answer will be controversial. While the majority will agree on trivial things like the taste of cow dung or where to wear your hat, they will be much more divided when you ask them if saving many is worth killing a few, or wether a preemptive strike is anything else than unjustified agression.

That's in this that I think that if you can't even verify the validity of a moral statement there can't be a suitable answer to a violation of a moral concept in order to prevent a more severe violation (kill one to prevent the killing of many). I mean that many may agree on one answer or another, but there is the potential for a third way more moral than the others; For example in you initial situation with the indians, you may ask yourself if the moral highground may not be in exchanging your own life for those of the indians.

Both exemple you use, while the may be true in certain circumstances are just unusable in other. The rule of the majority may be used to opress the minority. So in order to enfore moral statements, you will try to eradicate the moral tenets of others.
Regarding the hat, I don't quite understand how this could relate to proving the validity of moral statements. This is too simple an example to be used in complex moral dilemna were nothing is as firmly defined as a hat which was originally developped to be worn on your head and is highly impractical if worn on other part of your body.

I could continue but I'm not sure I'm clear enough to continue to explane my point of view on such a complex subject. To conclude I'll just say that in my mind there can't be, an absolutely true moral statement. They depend to much on the circumstances and the person making the choice. Moreover there is also the fact that in certain situation the moral answer may not be the right thing to do (aka the thing society consider as the right thing).

PS: I agree that if all your questions will be like this one this topic don't really belong in Forum Games anymore ^^

Edited by eXon, 25 November 2011 - 11:29 AM.

[©®åƒ†¥µåGGø†]

Ho ho... very good. A few small points though.

Spoiler

My question wasn't whether you can poetically define the word reality though. My question was whether if the proposition, "I see a tree in front of me," coincides with an actual tree in the external world or not. Is there an actual tree I'm perceiving with my eyes or is the result of electrical impulses fed into my brain by a super computer? As I explained in my previous example, someone experiencing a phantom-limb may perceive that there is an arm there and may claim, "I'm moving my arm around," but that claim is obviously not true. So why won't you try to answer my question seriously.

This was actually in reply to Polboron. I just copy pasted my post at a number of points and for whatever reason I guess the quote didn't come along with it. If you haven't looked into the signal transduction pathways involved in sight yet, then you definitely should. It's pretty cool. You only need a single photon to hit the rhodopsin in your rods to set off the whole thing.

Why not? Are you saying that it isn't absurd to propose that the hand you put in front of your face is actually not real (G.E. Moore 1939) or that basic mathematical axioms (such 1+1=2) may be false?

I think it is absurd to say that there is nothing real behind the perception of the hand in front of your face. That is not to say that your perception is spot on. Verification by other parties helps alleviate this concern to a certain extent.

There comes a point when an idealistic sense of reality becomes terribly inconvenient, and as such I am all for replacing it. In any case, it is a pain to keep on quoting, so I'm going to start using quotation marks instead. Anyhow, this is irrelevant, but you can actually do things like redefine addition such that (for example) x+y=x+y+1 (That is, when you "add" any two numbers, you add those numbers and one). However, all you are really doing is changing the operation of addition. 1+1=3 and 1+1=2 have different meanings (though when it comes down to it, they're kind of saying the same thing). Please note that this isn't actually a counterpoint but a random side note. I think it is absurd to suggest that 1+1=2 is false. May as well get it over with and argue that x≠x, and in that case you better be willing to throw out any argument you attempt to make using even the most basic of logic. That delves into pointless absurdities.

"There aren't 2 contradictory perceptions, there is only one."

Your eyes see a stump. Your brain, due to problems associated with divvying up the neurons, does not. These are both things you perceive. What your eyes see in this case just happens to jive with reality. You don't have an arm. As mentioned, you can also get verification of this from other parties. That being said, you could make the claim (and I would accept it if you did) that these two perceptions are not actually contradictory since it is like comparing apples and oranges.

"The one who is perceiving the arm to be there isn't assuming the arm to be there as if he was wondering to himself "hmm I feel an arm there but there might not be one" rather he found no reason to question it."

I wasn't approaching this from the standpoint of fact, rather from the standpoint of logical possibilities. Just because something is "true" does not make it "fact". The key here is actually in what you said... "true statement in reality"... In other words, I never actually addressed your question at all. Rather, I just phrased my argument to make it sound as if I did. I also shamelessly used fact and truth interchangeably throughout my post. I have also broadened the definition of perception considerably, as I'm sure you have already noticed. Anyhow, what's funny about phantom limb is that the people suffering from it often talk about it as if it's still there even though they know on some level it's not... So it's fun to trick 'em! Maybe convince them they're walking the dog, when they're not even holding the leash. Or maybe... have you ever tried blowing their phantom limb off with a bazooka? On a more serious note, I've always found it pretty cool that the mirror box actually works. I'd like to take some courses on neurology and evolutionary psychology in the future, but I really don't have the time at the moment.

"...but to suggest it's pointless to demonstrate facts we are sure to be certain about."

The skeptic argument essentially trivializes itself.

"I'll give you a possible start one may use against the brain in a vat hypothesis: with modern understandings of the brain and how it incorporates information, can a super computer really do that? (If it is so easy, why don't you make one)"

I thought I already mentioned somewhere that the notion is practically unfeasible (though that may have been in an earlier version of my post)? In any case, I never said it was easy. I said it was a convenient hypothetical example since you can kind of explain away perceptions of the world around you. Because of this, it would be a perfect choice to illustrate the point I suspect you are trying to make.

"I see, so if I actually believe that the 2012 apocalypse is going to happen then that is the reality for me."

Well, no. Don't forget that I am you too, and I don't believe that the 2012 apocalypse is going to happen. The "you" that believes in the 2012 apocalypse is merely a fragment of Yourself. If the 2012 apocalypse occurs, it is because You make it so. What a single fragment thinks doesn't play much of a major role. We are not fully aware of You because You is on a higher plane of consciousness. Likewise, You is not fully aware of us. And.... I'm going to stop myself there.

"So why won't you try to answer my question seriously."

If I answered your question too seriously (judging by what you've said so far anyway), then we'd probably agree on most points. The conversation would stagnate far too quickly, and thought would be discouraged. Introducing lots of silliness and a bit of controversy allows the conversation to go a bit further, and allows you to think about the question in ways you might not otherwise if answering too seriously. This is the kind of thing to think about on a number of different levels, as an intellectual sure, but also just as a person. Also, just because I'm not a very serious person, don't assume I'm not being serious and putting my heart into this in my own way.

"I mean yeah you can just remain indifferent and enjoy life."

It's not necessarily that I'm indifferent. It's more that I feel it is a better use of my time to explore within the confines of one system as opposed to dropping everything each time somebody comes up with another cock and bull story. I'd rather talk with my professor about the shmoo in yeast than to consider whether or not yeast are actually a relic of the super soldiers developed in an alternate universe during WWII. This doesn't mean that I won't consider it, but I do have certain priorities. When I say it doesn't matter at all, I'm exaggerating.

"I wanted to get responses from people who are new to field to make good guesses of how we may actually know we are brains in a vat."

Honestly, I feel this brain in a vat question could have almost been given it's own topic in general discussion for more people to discuss ad nauseam. I'm not so sure that the fact this particular question is in "forum games" helps. If it makes you feel any better, then I can't speak for others but I've enjoyed this question and have approached it in a way I certainly haven't before. Also, I'd like to take this moment to apologize for the statement about philosophy being 2% logic, 90% word games. It was a joke, and in perhaps poor taste. That being said, there are those that call themselves philosophers that treat philosophy just like that. Really, philosophy is what you make of it, as with anything else. In actuality, I have a lot of respect for the field. Science is much better off for it. Now how many philosophers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

"If I take a bazooka and blow my enemy's arm off, no one has to assume anything about the fact that he lost his arm."

Why is it that this particular question has resulted in assumptions being beaten up, arms being blown off, the apocalypse, and the devil randomly tricking people? Anyhow... you don't have to assume anything since you are essentially stating "I blew off my enemy's arm with a bazooka". Rather, this is a necessary assumption to say anything at all. You have to assume X in order to say X=X, but this is a such a trivial assumption that we might as well ignore it. As you point out, we have no reason whatsoever to question it. Though back to bazookas, if you replace bazooka with water pistol then such a statement might raise a few eyebrows. There may be reason to question such a statement at this point. How would you blow off an arm with naught but a water pistol? I think I was going to make a point here, but I forgot what it was. Doesn't really matter though. The real question here becomes whether or not there is good enough reason to question the assumptions. Given that we're talking about truth in reality, I'd say it is pretty fair to say the answer is no. We could say yes, but as you said that opens up a whole can of worms, and I think both of us would rather not go there. As is, we both accept that the phantom limb is not actually there. There is a line, that when crossed leads to ugliness, vagueness, and a whole bunch of other things. It can be fun to cross at times, annoying at others... I have a migraine though, so it's a no go.

"So evidence of the proposition of whether your girlfriend actually cheated on you or not doesn't matter as long as you assume it to be true?"

What I meant is that you adopt a certain framework to examine the evidence, and it is the framework you choose that is important when both result in logically valid statements. It was a poor choice of words, but I was really tired. On a related note, how dare she!

"unless you're saying that modern scientific endeavors are not necessarily more valid than Aristotle's picture of the world."

Well, I haven't read much of what Aristotle actually said so I can't say how logically valid what he said was. However, modern scientific endeavors clearly have a much closer adherence to reality. Thanks to a groundwork laid by philosophers and scientists and advances in technology, science has blah blah, too tired to complete my thought. In any case, I'm sure you have at least some idea of where I was going with that so...

"Anyways after one or more replies by tomorrow, I'll be posting up my answer to this and a new question."

In that case, I guess I'll get to see where you've gone with this after posting.

I'd like to finish off by saying that I'm sorry if I've offended or upset you in any way. I'm an extremely silly person who doesn't mean more than half what he actually says, but I'm aware that this can come off as kind of obnoxious on the internet. I've enjoyed this conversation. I'm sorry that I don't really have much else to contribute so we could discuss this further.

(Sorry for the late reply. I've been pretty busy the past few days so...) I'll put this in spoilers, since I'm sure you're way past this question.

[ValorantX]

It'll take some time to give my input so I'll just make some replies beforehand.

Morality is an ideal, a utopy humanity should strive to achieve. In a perfect world populated by a perfect specy, such moral debates would be irrelevant because there would be one clear answer and doing something else would be unthinkable. Therefore when confronted to a moral dilemna we have to make a choice, and to do so whe have to weight our options.
I'm personnally more of a relativist than a universalist so it will shape my argument hereinafter. Obviously you're free to disagree.

1. Can you clarify why you believe this?
2. You have not yet answered my question on what you think moral judgments consist of. What is considered "good" or "morally rational" and what is its validity based on? (whether it's validity is judged relatively or not)
3. No one however, intends to form a utopia, because it relies on an outlook of human nature that is just unreal. Writers Jeremy Rifkin and Matthew Taylor actually argue that any idealistic utopia takes away from the human experience because a world in which there is no suffering lacks empathetic capacity and individuality; but that's for another discussion. My more important claim is that we can't judge what the human condition (in terms of values, attitudes, choices) is like in a state of utopia and are irrelevant to the moralities adopted by people to guide them through life.
4. It's also confusing for you to support a utopian ideal if you are a relativist. If you believe that there is possibly a perfect world in which certain values and moral decisions apply in absolute terms for everyone, wouldn't that be universalism?
5. Am I correct to say that you believe in a type of utilitarianism? That our actions are considered moral to bring the greatest number of happiness to people possible? If you calculate which actions bring the greatest number of happiness, there is only one clear answer in making that decision. (such as that in a utopia)

By the way, I technically adopt neither relativism or universalism because I think there is something inherently wrong with adopting both views, just to clear any misunderstanding. I'm not trying to push you to any type of position at the moment, I just want to see what you believe in.

I think it's rather arrogant and blindsided to think that only one set of rules can be used while weighting these choices.

Can you clarify why you believe that? What is wrong with believing that although there might not be an absolute morality that covers all life circumstances, there still may be a "best" moral outlook on life, suffering, pleasure, obligations, etc. Isn't human nature much the same for everyone? But whether you can provide a good reason to prove otherwise, I wouldn't say it's an arrogant point of view. 0_o It's just that someone weighted their experiences and knowledge differently from you.

For me moral considerations depend too much on where you grew up, whether Christianity, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion/philosophical beliefs (like confucianism, not really a religion but with too much influence in China and other asian country to be disregarded) shaped your country throughout it's History, if you're poor or rich and many other parameter which have and will continue to define and refine each and every individuals differently.

Can you give me an example of a moral statement that "should" be applied differently to the cases you listed, in order to understand what you believe in.

This, imho, is the reason why there can be no empirical proof that baked potatoes are more tasty than cow dung. While I agree (not that I tasted Cow dung, so I may be wrong)with this statement, some people positively hate the taste of potatoes. So for them this statement may not be true. For each individual there is or may be a different answer. The more your dilemna touch to something essential, the more a single answer will be controversial. While the majority will agree on trivial things like the taste of cow dung or where to wear your hat, they will be much more divided when you ask them if saving many is worth killing a few, or whether a preemptive strike is anything else than unjustified agression.

1. You're missing my point. Although there is no ethical verification for aesthetic judgments, tastes still involve both descriptive and evaluative content. The judgment "tasting good" may differ from one person to another but it is still based on real-objective features about the world. There is a scale in which how our brain interpret tastes and a reason why we tend to avoid certain foods, although the scale might differ slightly from one person to another.
2. I'm not saying that people have to like baked potatoes, I'm just saying that no one would prefer cow dung over baked potatoes.
3. My point isn't that wearing hats or aesthetic tastes are like moral judgments, I'm just asking which kind of judgments are similar to how we judge moral choices. The first case being relative judgments based on objective content and the second case being valid statements based on serving a certain purpose.

That's in this that I think that if you can't even verify the validity of a moral statement there can't be a suitable answer to a violation of a moral concept in order to prevent a more severe violation (kill one to prevent the killing of many).

I agree, but all you have said is that one moral statement just includes more content than another statement, that's all. And you still haven't explained to me how you can verify whether the judgment is good or bad, or in this case, better or worse. What do you mean by a more serious violation?

For example in you initial situation with the indians, you may ask yourself if the moral highground may not be in exchanging your own life for those of the indians.

That's not a third moral outlook, that's just a third choice.
But to answer the question: Offering own life is not part of the deal that Jim is involved with, so stop changing the story.

Both exemple you use, while the may be true in certain circumstances are just unusable in other.

Can you give me an example of a moral outlook that is valid to your claim? (we all know about the examples of lying to help others and hurting others for self defense, but both can still be integrated into 1 "best" moral outlook so don't use them)

The rule of the majority may be used to opress the minority. So in order to enfore moral statements, you will try to eradicate the moral tenets of others.

This seemed to be entered rather arbitrarily.... Are you Nietzschean?

Regarding the hat, I don't quite understand how this could relate to proving the validity of moral statements. This is too simple an example to be used in complex moral dilemna were nothing is as firmly defined as a hat which was originally developped to be worn on your head and is highly impractical if worn on other part of your body.

The question wasn't whether it "is" practical to wear a hat on your head, but whether one "ought" to. There's a huge significance to that distinction.

http://en.wikipedia....s-ought_problem
http://plato.stanfor.../hume-moral/#io

But that wasn't what I was trying to get at, I was trying to press the issue how truth values are evaluated for such statements.

PS: I agree that if all your questions will be like this one this topic don't really belong in Forumm Games anymore ^^

hmm.... so how do we request this topic to moved to general discussion and have the posts count towards us then?

Edited by Saphsin, 26 November 2011 - 05:37 PM.

[©®åƒ†¥µåGGø†]

"This, imho, is the reason why there can be no empirical proof that baked potatoes are more tasty than cow dung."

Well I can't speak for cow dung in particular, but we actually are hardwired to dislike the taste of certain substances.

"4. It's also confusing for you to support a utopian ideal if you are a relativist. If you believe that there is a possibly a perfect world in which certain values and moral decisions apply in absolute terms for everyone, wouldn't that be universalism?"

Exactly.

"That's not a third moral outlook, that's just a third choice."

With regards to additional choices...

Consider how two systems are affected by the addition of a third option.

Universalism

not proper
A is a proper moral choice. B is not.
C is not a proper moral choice.
A is the choice that should be taken. (let's just assume we are taking the "good" path through life)

proper
A is a proper moral choice. B is not.
C is a proper moral choice.

Here we come to a point where a certain decision might be made. Can there, or can't there be two proper choices? The former leads to pluralism, the latter to monism... well, actually the latter leads to a contradiction. This might be resolved by adopting a sort of sliding scale of morality if you will, but that's to come.

Can be.

A and C are both proper actions to take given the situation.

Can't be.

A and C are both proper actions to take.
There can be only one.
Highlander stomps off in fury.
Rejection of monism (though you can be sure that a monist would argue that either A or C was not a proper choice at all). Doesn't really knock down universalism though.

Sliding Scale (I will refrain from stating all possibilities here since that will waste a lot of time, and a couple examples are basically enough to get the idea)

A is a more proper choice than B.
C is a more proper choice than A.
As such, C is a more proper choice than B
C is the most proper choice to take.

A is a more proper choice than B.
C is an equally proper choice to A.
A and C are equally the most proper choices to take.

And so on and so forth. The problem with this one is the question of whether or not it is actually possible to compare these choices in such a fashion.

In any case, regardless of how many choices you add to the equation, neither of these systems will be brought to their knees. You'll have to try something else to test the system.

"btw, this doesn't seem to belong in forum games anymore"

Agreed. To be fair though, this is because you're the only one actually asking questions. As I said in an earlier post, I almost feel as if these previous two questions deserve their own topics for people to discuss to their heart's content. The first question suggested a different kind of topic with more of a simple logic/riddles kinda four legs then two legs then three legs vibe.

Edited by ragnarok_water, 26 November 2011 - 07:01 PM.

[ValorantX]

The problem that this scenario is trying to bring is the case of a "moral dilemma." Moral dilemmas is more than just the inability to exactly weigh the benefits and consequences actions may bring, but also the inability to take responsibilities that the one making the decision must face. (this is a hint on how to think about the problem btw) There is a crucial moral distinction between a person being killed by me, and being killed by someone else because of an act or omission of mine.

Ragnorok_Water: I'm not really getting what you're trying to prove..... It's not just the fact that morality isn't really reduced to simply calculating proper choices, you can't really calculate proper choices at all because of varying circumstances; moral decisions are also weighed with the person's values rather than just predicting the best outcomes. In other words, the person and his psychological state of nature that is also concerned.

One crucial thing left out of the conversation what the purpose of morality is, or the question "why we should make moral decisions at all." Natural Selection strives for survival, education strives to develop people who can input their labor and talents into the economy and nourish creative ideas, investment serves to bring in more profit than the money put in. We don't have to make moral choices "if we don't want to." We hold a desire to follow certain morals because we have attachments, values, and a sense of rationality. That's why I'm asking you guys "what makes a moral statement valid" and "where does morality come from" otherwise we're getting nowhere.

Edited by Saphsin, 27 November 2011 - 11:02 PM.