Posted by:
iceman9090
(
)
Date: November 24, 2020 12:26AM
G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
“Moral laws dictate or establish moral behavior, and they are arguably somehow ingrained in the natural laws of the universe.”
==How are they ingrained?
You are making a claim but I am not able to follow your thought process as to how you came to that conclusion. Please provide the logical steps, the pathway that you used.
“Note also that physical laws do not and cannot accommodate consciousness and free will, both of which are necessary for morality by any measure. So if you want a "moral law" in any shape or form, you are going to have to transcend the physical.”
==Why not?
I think that a CPU is made by designing a circuit. A circuit is made by using a large number of interconnected transistors. Of course, a specific CPU is made by a human for a certain purpose.
The brain itself is also a circuit. Its basic unit is the neuron.
AFAIK, the brain is made of molecules.
Are you suggesting another, foreign material is used to make a brain?
“So what? No one is claiming that the laws of physics are identical to moral laws.”
==You mentioned them, so I had to show the difference between a physical law and a moral law. In other words, there are no physical laws at all. What exists are properties that these things have, such as the proton and its properties.
“What human scientists observe, and how they extract physical laws and mathematical theories requires properties of humans and human cognition that are not themselves neatly encompassed by physical laws.”
==Physical laws, in other words, the explanations that you find in the textbook about Physics or textbook about chemistry describe only fundamental properties of matter.
You aren’t going to find in them a description about how the AMD Zen 1 architecture works.
The subject of physics has its own scope.
The subject of chemistry has its own scope.
The subject of CPU design has its own scope.
The subject of AI has its own scope.
It’s layers upon layers. AI is layered upon computer architecture and CPU architecture which is layered on chemistry and physics.
AI -> CPU -> chemistry/physics
"So, you cannot ignore human consciousness, creativity, imagination, cognition, and free will"
==I don't see any reason to ignore it either.
I don't know what you mean by free will.
"Moral laws, arguably, fit into that aspect of the universe that encompasses human intelligence, free will, etc."
==I don't know what you mean by free will.
"And this is evident because of the failure of science to deal with these transcendent capacities in a meaningfully scientific way. Notwithstanding, such human capacities *are* subject to some universal laws (whatever they might be) that are presumably not strictly "physical.""
==Failure? What do you mean. Are you claiming that scientists have failed and have given up? They left the lab and they are not coming back?
“Good question. You will have to ask a theologist. I have no idea; which is why I have to reject this theory.”
==I already know the answer. They don’t know.
My point is, when they come up with some explanation power, I will be far more interested in what they have to say.
For now, the scientific domain has my attention. They have changed the world in big ways.
I expect it to continue.
From the theology department, they are not doing anything to advance knowledge. They are stuck in the year 4000 BCE or thereabouts.
“Not "inherited", but inherent! Arguably, they *seem* inherent because they are! Humans just get these inherent moral laws wrong sometimes.”
==When you say inherent moral laws, what do you mean?
You said humans get these inherent moral laws wrong sometimes and right sometimes. What methodology to humans use to get them?
Is there perhaps a problem in their methodology?
“The laws of physics, as identified by scientists, are indeed descriptive. However, they are descriptive of an order in the universe that is independent of science or scientists. Such order exists whether humans describe it or not. In other words, it is the order that underlies the laws of nature which human scientists then describe. They discover such order, they do not invent it.”
==It was fine until you wrote “the order that underlies the laws of nature”.
There are no laws at all. There isn’t a piece of paper that says a proton should push against another proton because like charges repel.
The only thing that exists is property. The things in nature have property. In the case of the proton, the example that I gave was based on the electric field of these protons.
The ordering is just an emergent behavior. There is a very large number of these subatomic particles. They can come together and form new structures which have new properties.
For example, a large number of sodium and chlorine atoms can come together and form cubic crystals.
What are going to tell me next? That there are particles that don’t obey any laws? Is there a universe with no ordering at all?
“Moral authority is the underlying theory that allows you to logically and objectively claim what a person is morally bound to do.”
==How do you do it?
“No. Under the theological moral theory (as I described it) the moral code is objective and people cannot generate their own moral code or laws from scratch in accordance with their own whims. Differences that exist between moral intuitions happen because of the complexity of contexts as well as the simple fact that humans sometimes get the moral mandate wrong. That does not mean that there is no underlying moral law that is part of God's creation. (Or, so the argument goes.)”
==Like I asked in my previous sentence, How do you do it?
How does this moral theory function.
What methodology is used to determine which moral code is objective and which isn’t?
“people cannot generate their own moral code or laws from scratch in accordance with their own whims.”
==Why not?
I thought people were intelligent sentient beings. Are they not?
“the simple fact that humans sometimes get the moral mandate wrong.”
==What methodology do humans use and at what steps do they falter?
“Objectively moral means--as I said--that there is an underlying theory that establishes the moral law as part of the universal order, and along with it a duty of human beings to comply with it. As a "law" it must be generated from some reality of the universe that trumps anyone's personal, subjective desires. For example, "murder" is thus deemed objectively wrong by some universal principle and not because any person or group of people dictated this mandate for social convenience, or to describe most people's moral intuitions.”
==So, let me get this straight. You are claiming or you are expecting that there is some moral code in the creation of the jewish god. I’m not even sure where you think this moral code is located. Is it located in subatomic particles? In the fabric of space and time?
I’ll let you answer that one and then I’ll get back to this one.
>> ==So, what you are saying is that natural
>> selection in the form of the jewish god killing
>> people is morally superior to artificial selection
>> which is done by humans?
>
>Say what?
You mentioned Eugenics.
Isn’t Eugenics the idea to kill some people. People who are inferior?
Isn’t that artificial selection?
“I am only talking theoretically here. I don't accept religion at all; and certainly not religious pronouncements of moral law. I am only pointing out the difficulty of grounding morality in some theory that establishes its objective character, including its moral authority, without invoking some notion of God.”
==I’ll just post the definition that you gave as to what objective morality means:
“Objectively moral means--as I said--that there is an underlying theory that establishes the moral law as part of the universal order, and along with it a duty of human beings to comply with it. As a "law" it must be generated from some reality of the universe that trumps anyone's personal, subjective desires. For example, "murder" is thus deemed objectively wrong by some universal principle and not because any person or group of people dictated this mandate for social convenience, or to describe most people's moral intuitions.”
==Ok, so there is a universal order according to you and the moral law is part of that.
What if I were to tell you that I get my objective morality from that? That thing that you call “universal order”.
PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME^^^^^PRIME
Note: I am not saying that I agree with your definition or that I agree with my answer. I am just trying to solve the problem that you are having.
The line with PRIME is a marker in the text.
~~~~iceman9090