Reality and Justice and the Metaphysical Norms

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Ok I'll just get right to it then. My brother has psychosis, among other things. He gets these voices in his head that tell him to do stuff which in his normal frame of mind... wouldn't dream of doing.

Anyways, it has gotten me pondering what is reality? We base our decisions off of a frame of mind which is not tuned to actuality, but to reality. Reality is potential, and actuality is not, so we cannot mean to live and therefore be conscious in actuality. Reality is not this purely objective form like actuality is. Reality is subjective in accordance to the mind with objectivity in terms of similarities to other minds. I mean, two people can perceive an apple as edible, so that's objective in that perception. Perhaps the qualia of the two minds are very similar too to getting the sensory input of the apple. (qualia to me is a function of experience, so it may not mean much as a term to use, but it counts when trying to relate to subjective measures).

Anyways, my brother recently ran away from home because he began to think and feel that we (the family) were aliens, today. I don't know why, but I do realize that this seemed logical to him. So I have two very important questions I am struggling to answer and could use some help without being suggested with books (becaue I already know I need to start reading more).

First, If somebody commits a crime under the logical influence of their reality, then what do you call that? Is that insane? Is there any form of justice that is necessarily right or wrong?

If a person commits a crime, lets say murder, and under their own reality felt that it was the only logical option based on any such influences as feeling threatened, delusions that are not awared to be delusions, etc. ... then is it a crime. I mean, how is this any different from us in a "logical situation". How do we know whether our reality is logical? It is merely a delusion. The logic comes when it si as objective as can be, right?:perplexed: But then why are there those ahead of the game who see evil in the norm and knowit is evil and they can use what you'd call "logic" to substantiate the idea. Because it's true, valid logically correct? :nonooo:No... we cannot look at rational boundaries for the irrationed subjectivity. It is because it is emotionally correct, and morally sound to the mind. Morally sound.... that's like the intuitive grasp of something equivalent to the logical grasp of a quantum infinity complexity. (or whatever you want to call it)

Does this make us to some extent insane (everybody)? Sanity has been realized as undefinable in terms of just comparing somebody to the social norm. I believe this to be true, however, if the social norm were compared to as purposefully healthy of body and brain, then why is there reciprocity of the people beyond the norm?

Second, what is sanity? Sanity has to do with the will in my opinion, something that if deterministic there can be no sanity, because it would be an irrelevant term. If we label will as much as the conscious thought then there is room for it, but then everybody is insane. Everybody has conscious thought but is it appropriate not to realize it is just a deterministic product of our being, which is of sensory input and chemical reactions that play no role in our purpose. And without purpose there is nothing to ponder and if the purpose is to ponder the question of what the purpose is exactly... well then that is circular and definitely insane.

If everybody goes about their lives acting consciously withing the bounds of self interest, then there is little room for understanding the lives of others and living peacfully with others. Social interaction is a purpose to life. Yet if all actions were based subconsciously so as to leave out self interest then what do you call that? Definitely not sane, but not insane either because there is indifference. Yet I'd probably deduce that to insanity anyways. Its like amoralism, and apathy... insane for actions to be always rooted upon those two.

So this topic is to discuss sanity, reality and justice, and their links to one another. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,321 • Replies: 76

No top replies

@Holiday20310401,

Justice, sanity and insanity are all ideas that we have invented; they are whatever one defines them as.

That said:
Nothing is inherently right or wrong; morality is relative. Insanity is synymous with abnormality and sanity with normality. It is a matter of perspective. Your sanity is only sane for you; your brother's 'insanity' is only sane for him. there are no absolute standards by which to judge anything.

3 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Justice, sanity and insanity are all ideas that we have invented; they are whatever one defines them as.

That said:
Nothing is inherently right or wrong; morality is relative. Insanity is synymous with abnormality and sanity with normality. It is a matter of perspective. Your sanity is only sane for you; your brother's 'insanity' is only sane for him. there are no absolute standards by which to judge anything.

If nothing is inherently right or wrong, then morality can't be relative because there would be no right or wrong to be relative to. You have a fallacy of self-contradiction. :whip:

There is no empirical or a priori evidence to support "morality is relative." That people disagree on questions of ethics/morality doesn't prove that it is relative or subjective. It only proves disagreement. It is possible for parties to disagree and one party be right the other party be wrong.

Sanity is not judged by "normality" but by rationality.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Justice, sanity and insanity are all ideas that we have invented; they are whatever one defines them as.

That said:
Nothing is inherently right or wrong; morality is relative. Insanity is synymous with abnormality and sanity with normality. It is a matter of perspective. Your sanity is only sane for you; your brother's 'insanity' is only sane for him. there are no absolute standards by which to judge anything.

Steerpike wrote:

If nothing is inherently right or wrong, then morality can't be relative because there would be no right or wrong to be relative to. You have a fallacy of self-contradiction. :whip:

There is no empirical or a priori evidence to support "morality is relative." That people disagree on questions of ethics/morality doesn't prove that it is relative or subjective. It only proves disagreement. It is possible for parties to disagree and one party be right the other party be wrong.

Sanity is not judged by "normality" but by rationality.

These two posts make for a very good beginning to this discussion.

First off, I agree, with reservations, with BrightNoon. I agree that morality is relative to the point that each person makes his or her own moral measurements and that without that measurement, morality simply wouldn't exist. However, that doesn't mean that we define them, rather I believe it has been defined for us. Morality is a function of emotions and reason, both of which are evolved traits. In that sense, I believe that while morality is relative, it is also universal (again with reservations, at typified by Holiday's brother), and based in our nature as humans and the nature of human understanding.

From this I break away from BrightNoon and slightly agree with Steerpike. Sanity, justice, and morality are not free-floating, but judged against these rational (and to a lesser extent, emotional) standards.

With that said, moral relativity does non fall to self-contradiction as Steerpike says. It is the very point of moral relativism that there is no moral absolute for moral codes to be judged by. When someone argues for moral relativism, they do not argue that morality is relative to some other code, but relative to the holder.

EDIT: With that said, I am only inclined to say that justice may not be material, but that it still matters.

For some reason, these Aristotelian terms concerning reality seem to get brought up in the most abstract and inapplicable manners on this forum. I hate them and avoid them like the plague.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

It is the very point of moral relativism that there is no moral absolute for moral codes to be judged by. When someone argues for moral relativism, they do not argue that morality is relative to some other code, but relative to the holder.

If morality is relative to the holder, then it is self-referential. This makes it question begging. Moral relativism is logically fallacious and therefore has a truth value of 0. :whip:

There is no way to logically salvage "moral relativism."

1 Reply

@Steerpike,

Steerpike wrote:

If morality is relative to the holder, then it is self-referential. This makes it question begging. Moral relativism is logically fallacious and therefore has a truth value of 0. :whip:

The moral itself is self-referential and the holder must accept that he cannot appeal to the objective truth of his morality.

The concept of moral relativism is not self-referential itself, in fact I cannot imagine how the idea of moral relativism could rest on someone's personal morality. Who has ever argued that moral relativism is true because it is "good"?

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

The moral itself is self-referential and the holder must accept that he cannot appeal to the objective truth of his morality.

The concept of moral relativism is not self-referential itself, in fact I cannot imagine how the idea of moral relativism could rest on someone's personal morality.

The bolded areas contradict each other.

Playing with words will not alter the logical flaws of "moral relativism."

Why can't he appeal to the objective truth of his morality?

If person A believes it is right for her/him to murder person B and person C believes that it is not right for her/him to murder person B, then are both beliefs equal (from a moral relativist standpoint)?

2 Replies

@Steerpike,

Steerpike wrote:

The bolded areas contradict each other.

Playing with words will not alter the logical flaws of "moral relativism."

Individual morality =/ the concept of moral relativism.

The truthfulness of "Thou shall not kill" has no bearing on the truth of moral relativism. Can I disprove moral absolutism by saying that "respect property" isn't a true moral.

Quote:

Why can't he appeal to the objective truth of his morality?

Because there is no objective truth to his morality.

Quote:

If person A believes it is right for her/him to murder person B and person C believes that it is not right for her/him to murder person B, then are both beliefs equal (from a moral relativist standpoint)?

They are not equal but neither is more objectively true.

1 Reply

@Steerpike,

Steerpike: A question, if I may interpose. I am a bit confused trying to understand where you're coming from.

Which are you saying:[INDENT]1. Morality shouldn't be relatively determined
2. Morality isn't relatively determined
[/INDENT]If morality (in practice in the world today) isn't relatively-determined, then what absolute or planetary "Guide to Right and Wrong" is everyone using these days? In discussing morality and justice, I think there needs to be a distinction between: How things are -and- How we think they should be. Otherwise we go whole-hog talking in vastly-divergent directions.

Hoping to understand - Thanks

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Because there is no objective truth to his morality.

Thank you. You just lost.

If "there is no objective truth to his morality" is true, then it has contradicted itself and is false.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

They are not equal but neither is more objectively true.

If neither is more objectively true, then why aren't they equal? :Not-Impressed:

Fallacious thinking calls for re-examination of thought processes.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

I'm still unclear why some folk are so sure that there is no objective foundation for any moral system. Can this be demonstrated?

1 Reply

@Steerpike,

Steerpike wrote:

Thank you. You just lost.

If "there is no objective truth to his morality" is true, then it has contradicted itself and is false.

What?

You are going to have to show me how "There is no objective truth to his morality" and "morality is relative" contradict each other.

Quote:

If neither is more objectively true, then why aren't they equal? :Not-Impressed:

Because they are different statements and because equality doesn't apply to relative statements.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Whoever wrote:

I'm still unclear why some folk are so sure that there is no objective foundation for any moral system. Can this be demonstrated?

:a-ok:

The "folk" that "are so sure that there is no objective foundation for any moral system" are either just ignorant or deliberately ignorant.

No. It can't be demonstrated because it relies on fallacy to begin with.

As you imply, there is at least one objective foundation for ethics/morality, but the ignorant either don't know it or don't want admit it.

Here is another fallacious view "ethics/morality is subjective" another popularly held and ignorant view.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

What?

You are going to have to show me how "There is no objective truth to his morality" and "morality is relative" contradict each other.

I have pointed out some logical problems with your posts. Your original post also was off the mark about emotion. Emotion has no necessary involvement in determination of right/not right(wrong). Emotion inhibits reason and therefore is a hinderance to that determination.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Because they are different statements and because equality doesn't apply to relative statements.

If they are not morally equal, then which one is greater?

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

I'm still unclear why some folk are so sure that there is no objective foundation for any moral system. Can this be demonstrated?

I don't know how you can demonstrate an objective foundation for a moral system?

It can be demonstrated that there are innate moral tendencies to the behavior of humans, and the argument can be convincingly made that these are evolutionary developments.

While it may be possible that we developed our moral tendencies according to some greater moral code, but it seems much more likely that this is just naturally evolved behavior with no teleological function. If this is the case there simply is no real morality.

People do behave morally, however, and people take morality seriously. Morality is real to everyone, even if it isn't absolutely real.

1 Reply

@Steerpike,

Steerpike wrote:

:a-ok:

The "folk" that "are so sure that there is no objective foundation for any moral system" are either just ignorant or deliberately ignorant.

No. It can't be demonstrated because it relies on fallacy to begin with.

As you imply, there is at least one objective foundation for ethics/morality, but the ignorant either don't know it or don't want admit it.

Here is another fallacious view "ethics/morality is subjective" another popularly held and ignorant view.

I would love to hear your formulation of a absolute moral system.

Quote:

I have pointed out some logical problems with your posts.

No you haven't. I have told you, the truth of one moral proposition has no bearing on the truth of moral relativism.

Two propositions, show me the contradiction:

1. Steerpike justifiably believes it is wrong to murder.
2. There is no absolute moral system.

Quote:

Your original post also was off the mark about emotion. Emotion has no necessary involvement in determination of right/not right(wrong). Emotion inhibits reason and therefore is a hinderance to that determination.

Nonsense. Reason is the "slave of the passions".

Reason can never tell us what to want, only how to get it, and so reason alone is powerless in developing a should. Without some underlying system of values, reason is just a free floating and useless set of rules.

Give me one moral proposition that relies on reason alone.

Quote:

If they are not morally equal, then which one is greater?

All statements of equality or inequality require an objective standard of measurement.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

No you haven't.

Indeed I have. Perhaps your grasp of formal logic is not sufficient to recognize it.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I have told you, the truth of one moral proposition has no bearing on the truth of moral relativism.

Moral relativism is not true. Moral relativism fails to be logically true.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Two propositions, show me the contradiction:

1. Steerpike justifiably believes it is wrong to murder.
2. There is no absolute moral system.

If you don't see a contradiction between those two propositions, then your critical thinking ability needs work. :sarcastic:

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Reason can never tell us what to want only how to get it, and so reason alone is powerless in developing a should.

Can you prove this proposition?

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Without some underlying system of values, reason is just a free floating and useless set of rules.

Why is emotion necessary to determine values?

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Give me one moral proposition that relies on reason alone.

Theft negates property. If we apply RAA to the concept of theft, then it would ultimately negate itself as all property would be negated.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

All statements of equality or inequality require an objective standard of measurement.

You have already said that neither is more objectively true than the other. Would that not imply that they have the same objective moral value? :whip:

1 Reply

@Steerpike,

Steerpike wrote:

If you don't see a contradiction between those two propositions, then your critical thinking ability needs work. :sarcastic:

If it is such an easy contradiction why don't you flex your formal logic muscle and show it?

At this point I think it is quite obvious that simply restating the contradiction is getting nowhere.

Quote:

Can you prove this proposition?

Reason only deals in abstractions: relationships, rules, probabilities. It doesn't actually deal with the physical. Because of this reason is always baseless. It deals with conditionals; if this, then this. It can never decide the former this.

We can make all sorts of reasonable rules, say a moral code the maximizes universal satisfaction. Yet, for all of the rules, we can ask "Why should we maximize satisfaction" and reason will not provide an answer to this. Why we do something is a matter of physical processes, material wants. Reason cannot generate those.

Quote:

Why is emotion necessary to determine values?

See above. Name one value you have because of reason alone.

Quote:

Theft negates property. If we apply RAA to the concept of theft, then it would ultimately negate itself as all property would be negated.

Semantics.

Theft is inherently unjust and property is inherently just. You cannot rely on a definitional tautology to analyze a moral proposition.

Example: We have competing claims for a plot of land. I set up a home on this land and you say, "That is my property! You have just stolen it from me and it is only right that you return it to me." Reasonably, there is nothing wrong with this, if it is your property then it is theft, and I was wrong. However, that doesn't make the statement true. All I must do to negate your claim is say "No, its my property". By making that statement you have said absolutely nothing moral, rather you have simply affirmed the definitions of property and theft.

So property and theft have no moral weight of their own. They are terms of reason, they explain relationships. They do not explain reality, and before we engage in any dispute over whether I wrong, we must establish who actually has the material link to the land to make the more moral claim to property.

Quote:

You have already said that neither is more objectively true than the other. Would that not imply that they have the same objective moral value? :whip:

Objective doesn't apply. You ask a meaningless question, like "What's 10 divided by 0?"

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I don't know how you can demonstrate an objective foundation for a moral system?

I don't know either, and I believe that nobody can do it, but I think it can be shown that such a system is possible.

Imagine that the universe is a unity such that at the limit all sentient beings share the same identity. Imagine also that in addition to the laws of physics there are the laws of karma, and thus a causal relationship between our behaviour in this life and our happiness and suffering in later lives, such that where we act to reduce the suffering of others our own suffering is reduced accordingly, (immediately, because the other is in fact us, and later, because the laws of karma will ensure it).

If you explore this idea I think you'll find that what emerges is a morality based entirely on self-interest, or, rather, one for which self-interest coincides with altruism. Perhaps such a system would not be strictly objective since it operates through subjects, but it would not be strictly subjective either. At least moral relativism would clearly be a perverse doctrine in such a universe.

Quote:

It can be demonstrated that there are innate moral tendencies to the behavior of humans, and the argument can be convincingly made that these are evolutionary developments.

I wouldn't deny innate moral tendencies, far from it, but they cannot be demonstrated thanks to the 'other minds' problem. It has not been convincingly argued that consciousness, let alone moral tendencies, is/are an evolutionary development. Of course, it wouldn't follow that they aren't.

Quote:

While it may be possible that we developed our moral tendencies according to some greater moral code, but it seems much more likely that this is just naturally evolved behavior with no teleological function. If this is the case there simply is no real morality.

It may seem more likely to you, and to many people, but it does seem so to me. I think moral tendencies are innate because we intuitively or empathetically realise the truth about our common identity. I can't demonstrate this, of course, but it is a possibility we cannot dismiss out of hand.

I don't mean to be argumentative, by the way, just to suggest that another view of these things is possible.

Regards
Whoever

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

I don't know either, and I believe that nobody can do it, but I think it can be shown that such a system is possible.

Imagine that the universe is a unity such that at the limit all sentient beings share the same identity. Imagine also that in addition to the laws of physics there are the laws of karma, and thus a causal relationship between our behaviour in this life and our happiness and suffering in later lives, such that where we act to reduce the suffering of others our own suffering is reduced accordingly, (immediately, because the other is in fact us, and later, because the laws of karma will ensure it).

If you explore this idea I think you'll find that what emerges is a morality based entirely on self-interest, or, rather, one for which self-interest coincides with altruism. Perhaps such a system would not be strictly objective since it operates through subjects, but it would not be strictly subjective either. At least moral relativism would clearly be a perverse doctrine in such a universe.

Perhaps you should reread my posts. Especially the first. I argue that morality is relative because moral judgment and deliberation is dependent upon the observer. Moral judgment is quite clearly an internally motivated thing. With that said, I also stated that in my opinion moral propensities are likely universally held considering the common evolutionary background and common human understanding.

I even went so far as to state, "it may be possible that we developed our moral tendencies according to some greater moral code".

Quote:

I wouldn't deny innate moral tendencies, far from it, but they cannot be demonstrated thanks to the 'other minds' problem. It has not been convincingly argued that consciousness, let alone moral tendencies, is/are an evolutionary development. Of course, it wouldn't follow that they aren't.

I disagree. Common moral decisions and propensities have been documented between all cultures throughout the world. The argument of the selfish gene and biological altruism is just as sound as any other evolutionary argument. Altruistic behavior has been documented in many species, not just people.

While I agree with the part about being unable to document consciousness (this came up in a different thread) I don't think that morality is in the same category. While we cannot test for the qualia of consciousness, we can test for common conclusions and common physical reactions of people exposed to moral dilemmas.

Quote:

It may seem more likely to you, and to many people, but it does seem so to me. I think moral tendencies are innate because we intuitively or empathetically realise the truth about our common identity. I can't demonstrate this, of course, but it is a possibility we cannot dismiss out of hand.

Could you please explain where this comes from?

Also this would still imply a subjectivist/relativist mode of morality since it is entirely dependent upon all persons perception of their relationship to other persons.

Quote:

I don't mean to be argumentative, by the way, just to suggest that another view of these things is possible.

Regards
Whoever

Be argumentative. I love arguments.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

I also don't mind a decent argument, so here are some points at issue. My apologies to Steerpike for derailing the previous argument.

I gave a scenario for which a system of morality can be derived directly from the nature of reality, and you say this would imply a subjectivist/relativist mode of morality. I don't know how to reply to this except to refer you back to what I wrote.

You say that common moral decisions and propensities have been documented between all cultures throughout the world. This seems to be the case. But this is precisely what Dennett and some others would call folk psychology. It has yet to be proved that consciousness, let alone any innate moral tendency, is involved in determining our actions, and many philosophers would say it cannot do so. Of course, I think the view that consciousness is not causal is idiotic, but I have to agree that we cannot demonstrate that it is is causal for the reason given. I suppose if it is possible to have innate moral tendencies and not be conscious then we might be able to demonstrate the existence of the former, but it does not seem possible to me.

You write, 'While we cannot test for ... consciousness we can test for common conclusions and common physical reactions of people exposed to moral dilemmas.' I agree inasmuch that we can observe the behaviour of people and conjecture as to what motivates it, but I have no idea how to test for common conclusions, only for behaviour consistent with common conclusions, a subtle but important distinction. If we could test for conclusions we could test for consciousness.

You write, 'Morality is relative because moral judgment and deliberation is dependent upon the observer. Moral judgment is quite clearly an internally motivated thing. With that said, I also stated that in my opinion moral propensities are likely universally held considering the common evolutionary background and common human understanding.' If you think I am saying the same thing then you have misread my post.

Clearly moral judgements, like all judgements, are internal. This was why I did not say that for my scenario morality would be strictly objective. But it would not follow that it is strictly subjective either, nor that our judgements can have no basis in objective fact.

The underlying point is that you would not consider it a moral judgement if you decide to avoid unnecessary suffering. In the same way, a Buddhist would not consider it a moral judgement if they decide to help someone else avoid it. It would merely be enlightened self-interest, informed by an understanding of the identity of all sentient beings. I'm not suggesting that we should all believe this. All I'm suggesting is that this muddies the waters for any argument about the subjectivity or objectivity of morality and that it is a view that cannot simply be ignored in order to keep the subjective/objective argument going.

2 Replies

Reality and Justice and the Metaphysical Norms

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know