Freedomain Radio

You claim that just as the laws of physics operate as universal so should moral reasoning.  However many laws of physics are relative.  For example, the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second...in a vacuum.  When light passes through a transparent or translucent material it is slower.  So the speed to light is realtive to it's medium.  Newton's laws of motion, like say the first (the law of inertia), is specifically predicated on a neutral inertial fram of reference.  So, for example, a small object within an excelerating body does not abide by this law of motion.  Special relativity and extreme gravitation also operate contra Newton's laws.  The current forces of nature (the four fundamental forces) did not operate as they do now during plank time.

You say, "No moral theory can be valid if it argues that a certain action is right in Syria, but wrong in San Francisco. It cannot say that Person A must do X, but Person B must never do X. It cannot say that what was wrong yesterday is right today or vice versa."  So wouldn't the above relativity of those physical laws seem in direct contradiction to this sentece. 

Does universality work with the generalized and unconditional rules you lay out?  Put it another way, isn't everything relative at a simple level and made absolute by relation.  For example, the statement "if I drop this rock it will fall" is incomplete, thus it's truth is relative.  The statement, "if I drop this rock while standing on a body with a minimal gravitation of X, it will fall" is an absolute.  The statement that the a car is large has no truth value.  The statement, the car is large in comparison to me has truth value.  The idesa of hot/cold, soft/hard, simple/complex, and so on and so forth are each relational propositions.  Now of course we use context to silently fill in the blanks during everyday speech, but should not philosophical/ontological propositions be as accurate as possible?

I'm not challenging or criticizing universality, at this point, but only seeking clarification of how the concept functions in light of the hypothesis that truth value comes from explicit relations?

That is interesting, thanks for posting, I always do relish the science.

Perhaps we should start at the beginning.

Can you tell me how, in general, in your approach, a true statement is differentiated from a false statement?

Stefan Molyneux:

That is interesting, thanks for posting, I always do relish the science.

Perhaps we should start at the beginning.

Can you tell me how, in general, in your approach, a true statement is differentiated from a false statement?

I am of the classical school (Kant, hume, etc) of thought that says there are two type of true or false propositions, Analytic and Synthetic.  Analytic propositions are things like, "all bachelors are unmarried".  They can be proven true or false based solely on language, internal consistancy, and so forth.  Synthetic propositions are propositions about reality that rely primarily on evidence.  So if I say, "vegetarians don't eat meat" that statement can be judged true based on the fact that it's a tautaology or that it's a matter of definitional language.  However the satement, "my desk is brown" cannot be judged to be true or false on logic and reason alone.  Inductive and deductive reasoning are used as tools here to evaluate evidence not as evidence (or aposteriori as opposed to apriori). 

So how can I know (rejecting absolute certainty as an impossibility) that my desk is brown?  I use first hand experience (I look), secondhand experience (I ask someone else to look or read the findings of another person while seeking to verify their objectiveity and impartiality), and use instrumental experience (I look at what a machine sees).  Of course this is all predicated on agreeing on a definition on the term brown.  Then I decide whether the evidence is proportional to the claim.  If it is then I accept the claim as true or likely true.

That's the basics of my epistemology but I can see this is going to be one of those tit for tat form conversations your so fond of, so let's move right along to round two.

idontlikeyou:

That's the basics of my epistemology but I can see this is going to be one of those tit for tat form conversations your so fond of, so let's move right along to round two.

That's a rather snarky thing to say, wouldn't you agree? Do you often find that employing snarky, patronizing bitchy comments such as the one above facilitate philosophical conversations? Why so unpleasant? Also, what's with your screen name?

It's a shame really, it was a great answer imo.

bockman:

idontlikeyou:

That's the basics of my epistemology but I can see this is going to be one of those tit for tat form conversations your so fond of, so let's move right along to round two.

That's a rather snarky thing to say, wouldn't you agree? Do you often find that employing snarky, patronizing bitchy comments such as the one above facilitate philosophical conversations? Why so unpleasant? Also, what's with your screen name?

I don't see the snark myself.  I've seen one line conversations used as examples in Stef's blog and books over and over.  My point was that by all indications this was a leading question into a larger point and I was inviting the second question.  It is diffuclt to establish tone in text alone, especially such short text, but I don't see how my choice of words was patronizing and bitchy? 

I'm apologize that was the meaning derived, when the author is misunederstood it's the authors fault.  I will be more careful of my phrasing in the future.

Perhaps you would better understand if I reword the sentence.

There's a rough overview of the epistemology I subscribe to but this looks like on of those "teaching questions" you often employ and I'm ready for the second one.

As I hope you can see any snark was simply from poor wording and not from intent.

Stefan Molyneux:

It's a shame really, it was a great answer imo.

I don't understand, what is a shame and why?  I don't see the context, please elaborate.

Stef - id really love to hear your answer this one. i was contemplating asking you something similar a little while ago but never got around to it so if you dont mind could you please continue the discussion anyway? if not for the posters sake then for mine and others who may be curious about it too. :)

im going to have a quick swing at answering it as well...

Id say that the way to get around this is to keep in mind that if all other things are equal then the same moral rule should apply across the board. if you want to change the moral rule to adapt to a particular situation then the reasoning for doing so needs to be logically consistant and universal also. hence if violence is wrong for people in syria as well as france except when someone in france is under attack then that also has to apply to people in syria. so if its wrong for people to steal and initiate force in all circumstances except when in self defence then it also needs to include citizens being allowed to defend against people wanting to forcibly take their money via taxation. the fact that the other people think they have the right to do so does not change anything as there is no logical basis for their claims. they are all human beings so all should be treated the same. so just as the light waves speed and path is altered depending on the medium it passes through a moral theory's application can be altered according to the circumstances but it has to be consistant just like the behaviour of light is depending on where it is. UPB as far as i remember allows for exceptions to the rule, within reason. eg mentally handicapped having less responsibility etc. but where everything is pretty much equal then it has to be universal. just because a rock wont drop in a vacuum doesnt mean it wont drop when you take it out of the vacuum into a place which has gravity. the behaviour of the rock is still absolute, it just depends on the other factors which have an effect on it. does this solve the problem?

Well, the answer to the question is certainly in UPB, but more importantly, it is embedded in the original poster's question.

He says that it is entirely possible or probable that the requirement for consistency to a theory could be different in different locations.

Yet he and I are in different locations, and yet he requires my theory to be consistent in both places.

It is a self-defeating criticism.

Stefan Molyneux:

Well, the answer to the question is certainly in UPB, but more importantly, it is embedded in the original poster's question.

He says that it is entirely possible or probable that the requirement for consistency to a theory could be different in different locations.

Yet he and I are in different locations, and yet he requires my theory to be consistent in both places.

It is a self-defeating criticism.

And with all due respect that's just a dodge and not an answer.  Internal consistency is not the same as universality and external consistency is not the same as universality.  Absolutes are not universals and generalizations are not universals.  I'm asking you to defend universality no because I demand universality but because I see holes in the idea and am looking for you to confirm or deny my suspicions through answering my questions.

For example, a universal is applicable without exception.  That's definitional.  So if you say killing is wrong is universal that means all killing in all places is wrong without exception.  Except I find that to be intuitively and logically over simplistic.  So an alternative might be life has a high value and deadly force requires an equally high justification.  If we accept that then the proposition "killing is wrong" is no longer a universal but a generalization because it no longer applies to all situations but applies to most. 

Another example of, for the sake of argument, desire utilitarianism would say that in situation A it would be acceptable to lie but situation b it would be unacceptable.  If universality is the most important factor then you would decry this as immoral.  However the decision is consistent within the reasoning and justification of desire utilitarianism.

Universality seems to me like trying to describe the world as a 2x4 when it's actually a jigsaw puzzle.  So please clarify.

idontlikeyou:

So wouldn't the above relativity of those physical laws seem in direct contradiction to this sentece.

The theory of relativity is not relative. It was born from an attempt to make the laws of nature universal in all reference frames in relative motion. Einstein later admitted he regretted the choice of the name relativity, since all kind of sofists used it to claim that his theory proved that everything was relative.

pcrs:

idontlikeyou:

So wouldn't the above relativity of those physical laws seem in direct contradiction to this sentece.

The theory of relativity is not relative. It was born from an attempt to make the laws of nature universal in all reference frames in relative motion. Einstein later admitted he regretted the choice of the name relativity, since all kind of sofists used it to claim that his theory proved that everything was relative.

And if you read what I wrote I am not making an argument from the name relativity.  I give very specific examples of where the laws of the universe are relative to a specific frame of reference.  Also universal means applying to all possibilities without exception.  If an exception exists it's a generalization not a universal.  If a statement includes all relative frames of reference (such as this rock will fall at this speed if I drop it on this planet) then it is absolute.  However universal and absolute don't necessarily meant the same thing.  Relative statements require a frame of reference, absolute statements are relative statements that include the frame of reference and universals are things that require no frame of reference.

Further examples:

6*9=42 is true, from the relative frame of reference of base 13.

This coat is too small is relative to the size of the speaker.

Deductive reasoning is valid, relative to a logically consistant universe.

"That is bright" is relative to the viewers ambient illumination.

Etc, etc, etc.

and a strawberry looks different from the side than from the top, but that does not prove there is no universality and consistency in the behavior of strawberries. Each strawberry obeys the laws of nature. Mammy is not really gone when she hides behind the door.

When you show a sum, you have to know the number base to tell if it is correct or not. The number base is a relevant property to determine the truth of the sum. The uniform,  headgear or skin color of man is not relevant for his morality.

If you invent a language in which all numbers are swapped, so 9=0, 8=1, 7=2, 6=3, 5=4, 4=5, 3=6, 2=7, 1=8, 0=9, you can write sums that are true in this new language and false in normal language. That does not mean your invention has made universal truth statements about math suddenly impossible. You just added a relevant property to the universal laws. Frame of reference can be a relavant property for the universal laws of physics. They stay however universal. Gravitataional force is depending on an object's mas. That does not mean gravity is not universal, because the force is different for different masses. Mass is an input in the universal law that caluclates the force. It is a relevant property.

idontlikeyou:

For example, a universal is applicable without exception.  That's definitional.  So if you say killing is wrong is universal that means all killing in all places is wrong without exception.  Except I find that to be intuitively and logically over simplistic.  So an alternative might be life has a high value and deadly force requires an equally high justification.  If we accept that then the proposition "killing is wrong" is no longer a universal but a generalization because it no longer applies to all situations but applies to most. 

I have the following problem with this theory.  First, it is a universal statement.  Killing is wrong without a sufficiant justification.  The justification varies, but it is still necessary.  For a parallell example, "It is wrong to take someone's money in trade and not provide them with an aggreed upon good or service." is a universal statement against fraud.  The good or service varries, but it is still provided.

The second problem is that it does not answer "Of value to who?" and "Of value as determined by who?"  It assumes an unfounded universal scale of values independant of the values of the individuals concerned.  For instance, suppose a knife wielding madman breaks into my home and I go for a gun on the grounds that my safety is of high value.  What if he then stabs me on the grounds that his life is of high value?  Each of us is acting to preserve what we hold as a high value, so therefore we are both justified in using deadly force by the standard you propose.  This seems a little strange to me, at least as I see it.

The laws of physics aren't relative, they are universal. UPB is universal if you prefer to stay alive and like human flourishing. Holding an inconsistent moral theory isn't wrong in an absolute sense, but you will probably die from it.