Materialist Ethics? Vegan Materialists?

[Nous]

Sounds like you'e not talking about materialism at all. Sounds like you'e talking about the belief in objective moral standards and their opposite. Not all non-materialists belover in objective moral standards, not all materialists don't (they just don't believe objectivity is arrived at by divine command)
Your question seems to really be why does someone without belief in objective moral standads make veganism an objective moral standard. The answer is they don't. It's a preference that their experience, personality and upbringing leads them to. No more a quandary than why someone without moral objectivity might say chocolate is better than vanilla. They'e stating a preference rising from experience, culture and maybe some biology.

Is this post to me? How about answering these questions: How does the materialist justify the claims (1) that it is better to conform one's behavior according to certain moral precepts (e.g., that one ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and (2) that it is possible to choose to conform one's behavior to any moral precept?

 

[Nous]

He doesn't have to believe in that.
Empathy assigns value to actions, and therefore compels people to behave in certain ways.

Words don't assign values to behaviors or compel people to engage in particular behaviors; concepts don't assign values to or compel people to engage in particular behaviors. People assign values to behaviors and choose to engage in particular behaviors.

People feel empathy towards certain things but not others.

Obviously the fact that people have empathy toward others and about the suffering of others does not account for why the materialist considers it better to conform his/her behavior according to certain moral precepts. It's actually the awareness of the rightness or wrongness of behavior that provokes people to be empathetic toward others. There is no rational reason to be empathetic toward an paper envelop that one rips open and throws away because there is no suffering involved--those acts do not cause the envelope to suffer.

As I have told you before, dictionaries are often lacking when it comes down to philosophy.

You asked me to define "available"; I quoted a definition. If you don't like that definition, provide your own. Then demonstrate that computers are able to choose between available options.

The best way to demonstrate that an act is voluntary rather than involuntary is to foretell that one is going to engage in some unique (or at least highly unusual) act in advance.

 

[Nous]

But you can't substantiate that there are objective moral facts beyond a shadow of doubt, can you ?

Actually there is a tendency among humans to agree about the morality or immorality (or moral neutrality) of various acts. For instance, all current cultures seem to agree that rape is immoral, and criminalize rape for that reason. This is somewhat like the tendency to agree that wavelengths between 624 and 740 nm are the color red.

Nevertheless, I don't make an argument on this thread about the existence of objective moral facts. My point is that it is a logical inconsistency for the materialist to consider that it is better to conform his/her behavior according to certain moral precepts (or, if you will, ethical standards).

 

[Nous]

Beating someone at chess involves more than computation. It involves abstract thinking and strategery that many people believed computers would never obtain.
Not now=/=Not ever.

I definitely don't think any computer developed "abstract thinking" on its own. Computers behave according to the programs that they are given by humans.

 

[Koldo]

Words don't assign values to behaviors or compel people to engage in particular behaviors; concepts don't assign values to or compel people to engage in particular behaviors. People assign values to behaviors and choose to engage in particular behaviors.

I am not talking about words. Nor about concepts. I am talking about feelings.
Feelings assign value. You don't go around randomly choosing what you value.

Obviously the fact that people have empathy toward others and about the suffering of others does not account for why the materialist considers it better to conform his/her behavior according to certain moral precepts. It's actually the awareness of the rightness or wrongness of behavior that provokes people to be empathetic toward others. There is no rational reason to be empathetic toward an paper envelop that one rips open and throws away because there is no suffering involved--those acts do not cause the envelope to suffer.

It does if those moral precepts are generated from empathy. From your empathy.
It is the same as saying 'It is better to conform my behavior according to my values'.

You asked me to define "available"; I quoted a definition. If you don't like that definition, provide your own. Then demonstrate that computers are able to choose between available options.

The best way to demonstrate that an act is voluntary rather than involuntary is to foretell that one is going to engage in some unique (or at least highly unusual) act in advance.

It's just that your definition is simplistic. It doesn't clarify what I would like you to clarify.
Consider what I have said and kindly answer my question:

"Had I wanted not to type this reply to your post, I wouldn't. But since I did want, then I did type it.
Is this sufficient to establish that I had more than one 'available' alternative ?"

If not, why not ?

 

[Koldo]

Actually there is a tendency among humans to agree about the morality or immorality (or moral neutrality) of various acts. For instance, all current cultures seem to agree that rape is immoral, and criminalize rape for that reason. This is somewhat like the tendency to agree that wavelengths between 624 and 740 nm are the color red.

Nevertheless, I don't make an argument on this thread about the existence of objective moral facts. My point is that it is a logical inconsistency for the materialist to consider that it is better to conform his/her behavior according to certain moral precepts (or, if you will, ethical standards).

But there are also remarkable inconsistencies, which can't be easily explained.
I know this is not THE subject at hand, I just felt like pointing out that moral realism has a glaring weak point.

 

[Nous]

Feelings assign value.

Assigning a value to an act--such as good or bad, moral or immoral--involves intellect. One can only assign a value to an act by making a choice.

It seems that you've gone down a bunch of rabbit holes in your post. Again, I ask: How does the materialist justify the claims (1) that it is better to conform one's behavior according to certain moral precepts (e.g., that one ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and (2) that it is possible to conform one's behavior to any moral precept?

 

[Nous]

But there are also remarkable inconsistencies, which can't be easily explained.

I'm not familiar with those "remarkable inconsistencies, which can't be easily explained." Nevertheless, as I said, I don't make an argument here about the existence of objective moral facts. My point is that it is a logical inconsistency for the materialist to consider that it is better to conform his/her behavior according to certain moral precepts or standards, such as is the goal of veganism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I cannot think of anything more inconsistent with the thesis of materialism than for a self-avowed materialist to choose to conduct his/her behavior according to ethical precepts such as that there is something wrong or bad with causing unnecessary suffering. No?

I'm surprised to see this from you. I do not call myself a materialist, but if I knew for a fact that materialism was correct - that all phenomena are rooted in energy in its various physical manifestations in space and time, nothing would be different for me. I wouldn't have the problems that you seem to assume I would or should.

the issue of objective moral facts, such as that it is somehow bad or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering.

Why would a materialist claim that there are objective moral facts, by which I assume that you mean moral precepts existing outside of conscious minds.

The problem of consciousness is: “How can a thing such as consciousness exist in a physical world, a world consisting ultimately of nothing but bits of matter distributed over space-time in accordance with the laws of physics.”

Consciousness might be an epiphenomenon of matter.

And the physicalist's position is not that nothing but bits of matter exist. there is also energy, force, space and time.

As noted, there seem to me to be two logical inconsistencies in a self-avowed materialist acknowledging that s/he chooses to conduct his behavior according to moral precepts such as that it's somehow bad or wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. How can the materialist resolve these logical inconsistencies?

I don't see a logical inconsistency. Whatever the fundamental basis of reality is, we are what we are, which are moral beings. You seem to be arguing that if we knew for a fact that the materialist position was incorrect, we should abandon our moral lives.

I don't recall seeing that claim except from theists, who often wonder aloud why atheists don't go berserking and wilding. Such people seem to have no sense of what it's like to live without a god belief.

Again, how does the materialist justify the claim that it is better to conform one's behavior to X (e.g., the precept that it is better to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and how does the materialist justify the claim that it is possible for a human to choose to conform his behavior to X?

Why does that need more justification than that it feels right? Should one do what feels wrong because he's a materialist?

 

[Koldo]

I'm not familiar with those "remarkable inconsistencies, which can't be easily explained."Nevertheless, as I said, I don't make an argument here about the existence of objective moral facts. My point is that it is a logical inconsistency for the materialist to consider that it is better to conform his/her behavior according to certain moral precepts or standards, such as is the goal of veganism.

Since this is not the topic, I will refrain from going further into that.
For now, I can merely suggest you to read more about it. You will find it easily.

 

[Koldo]

Assigning a value to an act--such as good or bad, moral or immoral--involves intellect. One can only assign a value to an act by making a choice.

It certainly involves intellect, but you don't go around randomly assigning values, do you ?
And it is all rooted on your feelings, isn't it ?

It seems that you've gone down a bunch of rabbit holes in your post. Again, I ask: How does the materialist justify the claims (1) that it is better to conform one's behavior according to certain moral precepts (e.g., that one ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and (2) that it is possible to conform one's behavior to any moral precept?

(1) It is better to conform one's behavior according to your goals. If you have empathy towards someone then you won't want cause unnecessary suffering to them. A materialist can have a goal-oriented morality.

(2) It is possible to conform one's behavior to any moral precept as long as you want to. This is compatible with materialism.

If you disagree on any of those cases you need to tell me why.

 

[Nous]

I'm surprised to see this from you. I do not call myself a materialist, but if I knew for a fact that materialism was correct - that all phenomena are rooted in energy in its various physical manifestations in space and time, nothing would be different for me. I wouldn't have the problems that you seem to assume I would or should.

Assume that the thesis of materialism is true and answer these questions: How do you justify the propositions (1) that it is better to conform one's behavior to that which generally consistent with what is considered moral (e.g., that one ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and (2) that it is possible to conform one's behavior to any such standard?

Consciousness might be an epiphenomenon of matter.

Then consciousness would not be causally efficacious; a person could not conform his/her behavior to any ethical standard, such as the standard where it is considered better to teach a 4-year-old to read than to rape that child. Right?

And the physicalist's position is not that nothing but bits of matter exist. there is also energy, force, space and time.

You are welcomed to define materialism or physicalism in any way that is relevant to the topic of the thread. People seem to have major difficulty in defining that thesis (or those theses) and arguing that they are true.

I don't see a logical inconsistency. Whatever the fundamental basis of reality is, we are what we are, which are moral beings.

Say what? How is it possible that humans are "moral beings" in a world where there are (supposedly) no objective moral facts?

When does matter begin behaving morally?

You seem to be arguing that if we knew for a fact that the materialist position was incorrect, we should abandon our moral lives.

I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency between the thesis of materialism and conforming one's behavior according to standards of right and wrong.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I definitely don't think any computer developed "abstract thinking" on its own. Computers behave according to the programs that they are given by humans.

They did though. Learning software is how the chess challenge happened. But the point isn' a one to one comparison of development of computers and brains. It's exploring fundamental divisions between human thinking and computers, if they exist at all. So far, many of the things we've previously thought were special and unique about the human brain have been shown to be not so much.
I wouldn' be surprised if the 'ceilings becomes something more and more like the 'ceilings' creationists believe there is between micro and macro evolution. This thing which computers will never be able to do because there's something uniquely special about the human brain.

Is this post to me? How about answering these questions: How does the materialist justify the claims (1) that it is better to conform one's behavior according to certain moral precepts (e.g., that one ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and (2) that it is possible to choose to conform one's behavior to any moral precept?

How do you? What non-material aspect is required? Once again, not all non-materislists believe objective moral precepts exist, but in no way take that to me no moral precepts exist, they're chosen and influenced on an individual basis based on one's experience and upbringing. (Meaning both choice and nonchoice aspects are involved)
And some materialists do believe in objective moral standards, (usualy empiricistd along the scientism persuasion) and that people who don't look to maximize happiness while reduce suffering are biologically damaged.
I'm not one of them, thinking that empathy, while a useful evolved trait for coheive social structure, is no more natural than its absense, as there is no natural ideals. Nature doesn't care what we do. But we care what we do.

 

[Nous]

It certainly involves intellect, but you don't go around randomly assigning values, do you ?
And it is all rooted on your feelings, isn't it ?

As already noted, assigning a value to an act--such as good or bad, moral or immoral--involves intellect. One can only assign a value to an act by making a choice.

(1) It is better to conform one's behavior according to your goals.

And why does the materialist believe that it's possible to conform his behavior according to the goals he was set for himself?

(2) It is possible to conform one's behavior to any moral precept as long as you want to.

How so? Why does the materialist believe that he can choose to act in a certain way (and choose to not act in another way)?

 

[Koldo]

As already noted, assigning a value to an act--such as good or bad, moral or immoral--involves intellect. One can only assign a value to an act by making a choice.

I will have to repeat what I stated since you didn't reply to it:

"It certainly involves intellect, but you don't go around randomly assigning values, do you ?
And it is all rooted on your feelings, isn't it ?"

And why does the materialist believe that it's possible to conform his behavior according to the goals he was set for himself?

Because having empathy compels you to behave in a such way that prevents you from causing unnecessary suffering.

How so? Why does the materialist believe that he can choose to act in a certain way (and choose to not act in another way)?

He experiences choosing to act. Willful actions exist.
Materialism doesn't preclude choice. It precludes libertarian free will.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But that thinking and strategy process must still be reducible to just mechanical steps for a computer to be able to perform it.

FEELING emotions is something a computer is not capable of is my point. It is just a collection of individual parts performing mechanically (no soul?).

You're making an assumption after the fact. 'A computer can do it so it must be mechanical. If a computer can't do it [yet] it must be because there's a non-mechanical aspect to it.'
I see no reason to believe feelings aren't mechanical, especially since we can actively control people's experience of feelings by manipulating their mechanical brain and endocrine system.

 

[Nous]

I definitely don't think any computer developed "abstract thinking" on its own. Computers behave according to the programs that they are given by humans.

They did though. Learning software is how the chess challenge happened.

That's what I said. Computers behave according to the programs they are given by humans. Computers did not evolve any novel capacity of abstract thinking on their own.

Is this post to me? How about answering these questions: How does the materialist justify the claims (1) that it is better to conform one's behavior according to certain moral precepts (e.g., that one ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering), and (2) that it is possible to choose to conform one's behavior to any moral precept?

How do you?

I do not adhere to or advocate the thesis of materialism. I happily reject the proposition that everything that exists is composed of objects that have mass and volume. The findings and theories of modern physics tell us that such a thesis is untrue. The two logical inconsistencies noted here for the materialist do not apply to me.

What non-material aspect is required?

Required for what? To understand that it's better to avoid causing suffering? Allow me to think about that question. I don't have an ready answer, but I think I can eventually say something that's semi-intelligent.

Insofar as (2), it's experience that allows me to understand that I am able to conform my behavior to what is moral and avoid what is immoral.

And some materialists do believe in objective moral standards, (usualy empiricistd along the scientism persuasion) and that people who don't look to maximize happiness while reduce suffering are biologically damaged.

That's true. I can all three of them. The problem with that idea is that scientific experiments have never tested a hypothesis about the existence of objective moral facts, and matter does not seem to have such properties. I think it's a category error.

 

[Nous]

Introducing this argument as being about materialism and/or veganism seems to be mislead.

The questions I ask here are not specifically about veganism; I only used veganism as an example of moral behavior that a small percentage of the population conform their behavior to.

Really the point of the questions is intended the highlight the vacuity of "materialist ethics". How can materialism be consistent with an ethical system? When and how do Jaegwon Kim's "bits of matter" begin to behave morally? How does the materialist identify some behavior or act as "good"? Why is raping a 4-year-old not just as "good" as teaching her to read? That is, why would the materialist believe that the former isn't just as "good" as the latter?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's what I said. Computers behave according to the programs they are given by humans. Computers did not evolve any novel capacity of abstract thinking on their own.

I do not adhere to or advocate the thesis of materialism. I happily reject the proposition that everything that exists is composed of objects that have mass and volume. The findings and theories of modern physics tell us that such a thesis is untrue. The two logical inconsistencies noted here for the materialist do not apply to me.

Required for what? To understand that it's better to avoid causing suffering? Allow me to think about that question. I don't have an ready answer, but I think I can eventually say something that's semi-intelligent.

Insofar as (2), it's experience that allows me to understand that I am able to conform my behavior to what is moral and avoid what is immoral.

That's true. I can all three of them. The problem with that idea is that scientific experiments have never tested a hypothesis about the existence of objective moral facts, and matter does not seem to have such properties. I think it's a category error.

Most people who identify as materialists don't believe all things which exist is matter. That might've been true ages ago but the common use of the term has developed to include things like Naturalism, Substance Monism, Ontological Monism, Physicalism, Empiricism, Scientism, et al. So there's really no problem with modern physics and materialism as the term is in use.

I agree with you that morals aren't a science issue insofar as science doesn't provide value judgement, it's just a tool for collecting data. Though it can help provide accurate data for making moral decisions which I believe is very important.

But as to your thread at large, I'm still not seeing why being a materialist would prohibit a person from having experience influence their moral judgement as opposed to a non-materialist.

 

[Nous]

I will have to repeat what I stated since you didn't reply to it:

"It certainly involves intellect, but you don't go around randomly assigning values, do you ?
And it is all rooted on your feelings, isn't it ?"

Your statements are self-contradictory. You say in one sentence that assigning values "involves intellect" and in the next sentence that "It's is all rooted on your feelings".

You ask the question "And it is all rooted on your feelings, isn't it?" My answer is "no". In fact, sometimes it may "feel good"--at least temporarily--to act in ways that are immoral. Right? ("I racked up ten thousand dollars on his credit card and got away with it! High five!")

Because having empathy compels you to behave in a such way that prevents you from causing unnecessary suffering.

False. Having empathy does not compel behavior.

Materialism doesn't preclude choice.

How does matter choose? Cite those studies.